Proceedings: International

Conference on Transfer of

Forest Science Knowledge

and Technology

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-726

August 2007
Editors

Cynthia Miner is a general biologist and Becky Bittner is a forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station, 333 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97208-3890; Ruth Jacobs is an outreach

biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, 777 NW 9th, Corvallis, OR 97330;

Dennis Dykstra is a research forest products technologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main St., Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205.

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture of any product or service.

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, S.W. Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-

3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and

employer.
i

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest

Science Knowledge and Technology

Cynthia Miner, Ruth Jacobs, Dennis Dykstra, and Becky Bittner, Editors

Troutdale, OR, USA, May 10–13, 2005

Sponsored by:

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station

U.S. Geological Survey

Oregon State University

University of Washington

IUFRO Working Party 6.06.01—Technology Transfer

IUFRO Research Group 5.12—Sustainable Utilization of Forest Products

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-726

August 2007
ii

Abstract

Miner, Cynthia; Jacobs, Ruth; Dykstra, Dennis; Bittner, Becky, eds. 2007. Proceedings: international conference

on transfer of forest science knowledge and technology. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-726. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 255 p.

This proceedings compiles papers presented by extensionists, natural resource specialists, scientists, technology

transfer specialists, and others at an international conference that examined knowledge and technology transfer

theories, methods, and case studies. Theory topics included adult education, applied science, extension, diffusion of

innovations, social marketing, technology transfer, and others. Descriptions of methods and case studies collectively

covered a wide range of current approaches that include combined digital media, engagement of users and communication specialists in the full cycle of research, integrated forestry applications, Internet-based systems, science writing,

training, video conferencing, Web-based encyclopedias, and others. Innovations transferred were best management

practices for water quality, forest reforestation practices, a land management system, portable timber bridges, reducedimpact logging, silvicultural practices, urban forestry, and many others. Innovation users included forest-land owners;

land managers; logging industry; natural resource professionals; policymakers; public; rural and urban communities—and those in the interface between these two; and others. Technology transfer and related efforts took place in

countries throughout the world.

Keywords: Technology transfer, communication, education, forest research, forest management, knowledge

management.
iii

Preface

Cynthia Miner1

In May 2005, about 100 people met in Troutdale, Oregon, to share information, perspectives, and insights about

knowledge and technology transfer. They came from North America, Europe, South America, and Africa. Some were

scientists, others professionals working to assure that new concepts, practices, and technologies developed by their

institutions are used.

The conference was planned by the International Union of Forest Organization’s (IUFRO) Working Party 6.06.01

(Technology Transfer), Research Group 5.12 (Sustainable Utilization of Forest Products), Oregon State University,

University of Washington, USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station, and U.S. Geological Survey. Without the

combined efforts of these organizations, the conference would not have been possible.

The question posed by the planning committee was “How can we improve the ability of forest science organizations throughout the world to understand how to successfully influence the adoption of the innovations they generate?” This was an echo of two questions posed by G.H. Moeller and D.T. Seal when they held a conference of an

IUFRO subject group established in 1981 to develop methods for the rapid worldwide dissemination and application

of results of forestry research. At the conference of 1983 in Edinburgh, Scotland, they asked, “What can researchers

and their organizations do to improve technology transfer in forestry?” and “What can research users and their

organizations do to improve technology transfer in forestry?”

In the conference proceedings, Moeller and Seal2

 stated “Projections indicate that within the next 10 years, the

volume of accumulated information will be four to seven times what it is today.” The concern was that as the rate of

knowledge accumulation increased, the gap of its application would lag. They described the need to increase efficiency through purposeful transfer from research to practice. They suggested this be done by leadership, personal and

financial commitment, and creative management of resources by forest science organizations. The conference and the

establishment of the working group in the early 1980s marked an increase and formalization of the intent of forest

science organizations to assure application.

What has changed over the past two decades? The approach taken by the 1983 conference and the papers in its

proceedings reflected a linear, assembly-line definition of technology transfer as a one-way process from producer to

user. Many of the papers presented here describe a process very different from one-way transfer and use terms such as

multiple channels, back-and-forth exchange, and personalization. And instead of a handoff to the user at the end of

the research process, many papers describe the inclusion of users, customers, and community members throughout

the research process and present concepts such as customer-relationship management, partnership, and integration.

Several papers describe studies and efforts to improve understanding of the people who are potential users of new

information.

The 2005 conference papers collectively show a shift from the 1983 view of anticipating information overload to

development of systems and methods for managing and making information available through multiple channels.

Electronic methods for sharing information have evolved quickly over the last decade so that applications are readily

1 Biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208. Deputy

coordinator and former coordinator of the IUFRO Technology Transfer Working Group (6.06.01).

2 Moeller, G.H.; Seal, D.T., eds. 1984. Proceedings of a IUFRO conference. Technology transfer in forestry. Forestry Commission Bulletin No. 61.

London, England: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. 113 p.
iv

available and are becoming easy to use. Moreover, managing information and knowledge requires understanding the

process of transferring, diffusing, and applying it. Papers here describe related theories, methods, and case studies.

These papers show complex approaches to technology transfer are being developed, new state-of-the-art technology is being applied, and many programs and projects are underway at many institutions. These efforts are being

funded by the organizations represented by the authors of these papers. As one author points out, organizations are

being held to standards of accountability that require investment toward application of science—and technology

transfer in its many forms is the effort to assure this happens.

If the current trends continue, we can anticipate that instead of becoming simpler, the field of technology transfer

will become more dynamic and complex—the more we know, the more we realize we don’t know. New trends, needs,

issues, and people will require new approaches. Technology will continue to provide solutions and methods to help

us manage this complexity. Traditional practices such as science writing and hardcopy formats are not going away

and are key to assuring understanding of complex science information by broad audiences.

The past decade has seen declines in forest science investment across the world. Those of us working in the area

of technology transfer have never had a greater calling to be successful. Critical at this time is working together in

scientific study, endeavors to reach mutual users, and sharing knowledge among one another. This proceedings is

intended to contribute in a helpful way to each of these aspirations.

Acknowledgments

The International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology was made possible through

the contributions of many people and organizations. Participating organizations included the International Union of

Forest Research Organization’s (IUFRO) Working Party 6.06.01 (Technology Transfer) and Research Group 5.12

(Sustainable Utilization of Forest Products), USDA Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Oregon State University,

University of Washington, and Weyerhauser Corporation. Planning committee members included Cynthia Miner,

Jamie Barbour, Becky Bittner, Ruth Jacobs, Scott Reed, Larry Mason, Don Hanley, and Tom Wordell. Special thanks to

Joe Holmberg and Nathalie Gitt at the Forestry Outreach Education Office, Oregon State University for their help in

coordinating the conference, Gary Benson for organizing the poster session, and the Communications and Applications Program, PNW Research Station for their expertise in graphic and Web design. Thanks also to Kristine Cochrane,

Charlie Crisafulli, Carolyn Driedger, and Dick Ford for sharing their knowledge of Mount St. Helens on the field trip

held on the last day of the conference. And finally, thank you to all who provided thoughtful reviews of each paper

and to the authors who revised their contributions based on those reviews. A few papers were rejected and have not

been included in these proceedings as a result of the thorough review process.
v

Contents

Theory

1 From a Social Marketing Perspective: A Proposed Customer Relationship Management Technology

Transfer Model

Delton Alderman, Kent Nakamoto, and David Brinberg

9 Getting Technology Into Practice: Using Pre- and Posttraining Activities

Ralph R. Johnson and Gary E. Dixon

15 Applied Science and Technology Transfer for Avoided Costs and Protected Forest Values

Bruce Lippke, Alicia Robbins, and Larry Mason

25 Best Practices: Theories From the Field

Viviane Simon-Brown and A. Scott Reed

31 In Search of the Science Integration Keystone

Charisse Sydoriak

47 Organizing Information for Natural Resource Management

Gordon E. Warrington

55 Communication Barriers to Applying Federal Research in Support of Land Management in the

United States

Vita Wright

Methods

65 Video-Teleconferencing: A Powerful Tool for Technology Transfer

Robert E. Bardon and Susan E. Moore

73 Challenges and Opportunities in Forest Restoration Outreach: The Example of Southwestern

Ponderosa Pine Forests

Peter Friederici

83 Why Good Ideas and Good Science Do Not Always Make It Into the Marketplace

Charles R. Frihart

93 Photomonitoring

Frederick Hall

103 Diffusion of Innovation Concepts for Evaluating Adoption of Practice

William G. Hubbard

109 North American Perspective on Successful Strategies in Extension and Technology Transfer

James E. Johnson, Eric R. Norland, and Janean H. Creighton

117 Science Writing—A Promising Way to Intensify Knowledge Transfer in Forest Sciences

Reinhard Lässig

125 Combine Digital Media Technologies to Produce an Interactive Distance Learning Tool

Luke W. Rogers and Matthew R. McLaughlin

131 Tree Judging: A Quantifiable, Hands-on Tool to Teach Forest Genetics and Applied Silviculture

Christopher C. Schnepf
vi

Case Studies

139 Promoting Reduced-Impact Logging in Tropical Developing Countries: A Success Story of

Technology Transfer

Dennis P. Dykstra

149 Rural Technology Initiative: Science and Technology to Assist Rural Forest Resource-Based

Communities in Washington State, U.S.A.

Donald P. Hanley, Bruce R. Lippke, David M. Baumgartner, and C. Larry Mason

161 WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET: A Joint Internet-Based Information Platform Transferring

Forest Knowledge in the Alpine Space

Reinhard Lässig, Martin Moritzi, Marcus Schaub, and Roderich von Detten

169 The Landscape Management System: Emerging Technology for Integrated Forestry Applications

James B. McCarter, Christopher E. Nelson, Kevin R. Ceder, and Kevin W. Zobrist

179 The Wildland-Urban Interface Professional Development Program

Martha C. Monroe, L. Annie Hermansen-Báez, Lauren McDonell, and Edward Macie

183 Measuring Best Management Practices Knowledge and Implementation Among Catskill/Delaware

Watershed Nonindustrial Private Forest-Land Owners

John F. Munsell and René H. Germain

193 Using Web-Based Technology to Deliver Scientific Knowledge: The Southern Forest Encyclopedia

Network

John M. Pye, H. Michael Rauscher, Deborah K. Kennard, Patricia A. Flebbe, J. Bryan Jordin,

William G. Hubbard, Cynthia Fowler, and James Ward

201 Got Science? Getting Science to People Who Care About Forests

Valerie A. Rapp and Sherri Richardson-Dodge

209 Reaching Out to Family Forest Owners: An Examination of Information Behaviors by Attitudinal Type

K. Julie Richter and Bernard J. Lewis

219 Evaluating Technology Transfer in the Logging Industry: A Case Study With Portable

Timber Bridges

Robert L. Smith and Ren-Jye Shiau

229 SILVAH-OAK: Ensuring Adoption by Engaging Users in the Full Cycle of Forest Research

Susan L. Stout, Pat Brose, Kurt Gottschalk, Gary Miller, Pete Knopp, Gary Rutherford, Mark Deibler,

Gary Frank, and Gary Gilmore

239 Communication During the Research Process: Experiences Within Tropenbos International’s

Country Programs

Anneke Wieman, J. Mulder, C. Naaijen, B. Mendez, and F. Deul

249 Public Ideas and Local Policy in Urban Forestry: Reflections on a Program of Portable Science

Kathleen L. Wolf
vii

Theory
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
1

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Abstract

Technology and knowledge transfer (TKT) is practiced

for a plethora of causes, ranging from AIDS prevention to

manufacturing competitiveness. The number of government, university, and association TKT efforts is exhausting and fraught with problems; we know anecdotally

that the adoption of technology or knowledge is minimal

across all contexts. There are a myriad of reasons as to

why this phenomenon (i.e., minimal adoption of technology or knowledge) exists, and it is beyond our scope to

elucidate on the causes of low-adoption; rather, our

intent is to present a theory of TKT based on personalization.

Our personalized TKT model draws from economic,

sociology, and social psychology theory constructs,

which are couched in the customer relationship management concept. Specifically, we utilize transaction cost

economics, social exchange theory, and the constructs of

perceived risk and trust to develop a personalized TKT

model. We believe that for TKT efforts to be successful,

a customer-based approach should be employed rather

than the traditional, top-down hierarchical method. One

of our objectives is to create a salient “shortcut” in the

1 Research scientist (NE-4701), USDA Forest Service, Northeastern

Research Station, 241 Mercer Springs Road, Princeton, WV 24740,

Tel: 304-431-2700; e-mail: dalderman@fs.fed.us

2 R.B. Pamplin professor of marketing and department head, R.B.

Pamplin College of Business and Alfred P. Sloan Forest Industries

Center at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,

Blacksburg, VA 24061.

3

R.O. Goodykoontz professor of marketing, R.B. Pamplin College

of Business and the Sloan Forest Industries Center, Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2019 Pamplin Hall,

Blacksburg, VA 24061.

customer’s cognitive schema; whereby a relationship is

formed and customers look to TKT providers first for

knowledge and/or technology.

Finally, we introduce personalization as a construct.

Personalization can be measured and, more importantly,

implemented in many forms. For instance, it may include

customizing materials, delivery methods, or both; oneto-one interactions including at intermediary sites; or

transfer and subsequent adoption may be a function of

visit frequency. Traditional TKT approaches are primarily top down (i.e., hierarchal); our premise is that

personalizing TKT, a bottom-up market-driven (i.e.,

tailored) tactical approach, may ameliorate risk for riskaverse actors and augment trust among TKT providers

and ultimately the adoption of technology, knowledge,

or both. The ultimate value of personalization is beneficial because personalization can hasten adoption of

TKT. Exploration of the impact of personalization also

can help us to understand the mechanisms that affect the

success of TKT and ultimately the adoption of technology or knowledge.

Keywords: Social marketing, trust, perceived risk,

customer relationship marketing, and personalization.

Introduction

Technology and knowledge transfer (TKT) is practiced

for a plethora of causes, ranging from AIDS prevention

to manufacturing competitiveness. The number of

government, university, and association TKT efforts is

exhausting and fraught with problems; we know anecdotally that the adoption of technology or knowledge

is minimal across all contexts. The reality of TKT rarely

lives up to expectations or perceptions of its potential,

From a Social Marketing Perspective: A Proposed Customer

Relationship Management Technology Transfer Model

Delton Alderman,1 Kent Nakamoto,2 and David Brinberg3
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

even when competitive emulation is not a serious threat

(Galbraith 1990, Gupta et al. 2000, Ruggles 1998). There

are a myriad of reasons as to why this phenomenon (i.e.,

minimal adoption of technology or knowledge) exists,

and it is beyond our scope to elucidate the causes of low

adoption.

Traditional views of innovation adoption focus on

organizational demographics and innovation characteristics as being the primary predictors of adoption (Rogers

1995). Technology and knowledge transfer assets are

fundamental sources of competitive advantage in open

economies; consequently the long-term prosperity of

firms operating in open economies is increasingly predicated on their ability to identify technology and

knowledge assets and to properly exploit them before

they are emulated by competitors (Argote and Ingram

2000, Eisenhardt and Martin 2000). Clearly, one goal

of TKT is to foster competitiveness and sustainability.

Customer preferences can be revealed by fostering a

learning relationship as personalization concentrates on

providing services or products to one customer at a time

by identifying and then satisfying their individual needs.

Personalization then aspires to repeat this several times

with each customer, so that enduring relationships are

developed (Peppers and Rogers 1997). Taylor (1998)

reported that a service-type relationship with customers

has benefited many businesses. Hence, appreciation of

the human component guides us from myopic actions,

rather than perceiving of TKT as only an exchange from

point “A” to point “B.” To be more precise, consider

transfer as an interactive process with back-and-forth

exchange between you and your customer for an extended period (Gibson and Smilor 1991).

Social Marketing

Kotler and Zaltman (1971) originally defined social

marketing (SM) as “...the design, implementation and

control of programs calculated to influence the acceptability of social ideas and involving consideration of

product planning, pricing, communication, distribution

and marketing research.” Another useful characterization is, “...the planning and implementation of programs

designed to bring about change using concepts from

traditional marketing” (Social Marketing Institute 2005).

Shrum et al. 1994 operationalized the SM four-P’s as:

product—what is being offered to the target consumer;

price—the cost(s) of employing the technology; promotion—integrated communication using different strategies and channels to reach the target audience; and place

(distribution) defined in two different manners, both of

which are relevant to us: (1) the means to accomplish

a given behavior (i.e., where the actor participates) and

(2) providing adequate and compatible response channels for our customers. A proposed fifth-P also may be

relevant: positioning, which “involves the location of

the product relative to other products and activities with

which it competes” (Alcalay and Bell 2000).

Customer Relationship Management

The American Marketing Association (2005) defined

customer relationship management (CRM) as seeking

to create more meaningful one-on-one communications

with the customer via customization (i.e., the tailoring

of a product to the special and unique needs of the

customer). However, this is rather ascetic; Gummesson

(1998) proffered CRM as an association requiring a longterm view, one of mutual respect, and “...the acceptance

of the customer as a partner and coproducer of value and

not just a passive recipient...”. We agree with this conceptualization; as TKT providers we should strive to

understand not only the characteristics of the customer,

but of how the technology or knowledge “fits” and its

potential “effects” on our customers.

With “fit” and “effect” in mind, our view also

includes transaction cost economics, expenditures that

determine transaction viability. Expenditures include the

costs associated with intermediate governance structures

(IGSs) (Parkhe 1993) such as alliances, the stability or
3

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

longevity of relationships, and commitment of the actors

involved. The IGSs are used to form long-term relationships and include transaction-specific assets (TSAs)—

assets that have little or minimal value outside of the

exchange relationship (Williamson 1985). These assets

include specialized training, experience, and with

regards to personalized TKT, source credibility, predictability (i.e., consistency of relationship), dependability

(i.e., is it in the client’s best interest?), and longevity (i.e.,

length of relationship). Actors invest in TSAs for three

reasons: (1) efficiency and effectiveness, (2) to signal

honorable intentions for the relationship, and (3) as a

requirement of exchange (Brown et al. 2000).

Social exchange theory affords us the opportunity

to expand TSAs and suggests that two discrete constructs

are influential in understanding relationships among

partners: (1) Trust between the partners has a positive

impact on the long-term relationship, particularly when

environmental forces predicate changes and (2) dependence on a partner is important in influencing the

longevity of the exchange relationship. Trust also has

been found to affect the adoption of new technologies

(Fukuyama 1995). We also believe that perceived risk

must be recognized, as it is a driver of the antecedents of

trust and trust also moderates some antecedents of

perceived risk.

Trust (fig. 1) has several definitions. Here we use

Moorman et al.’s (1992), “the willingness to rely on

the exchange partner in whom one has confidence”

and Dodgson’s (1993), “trust is one’s disposition, an

expectation held by one partner about another that they

will behave in an acceptable manner.” Zaltman and

Moorman’s (1988) research indicated that personal trust

is potentially the most vital behavioral factor affecting

the use of knowledge. According to them, trust is important to knowledge utilization because it ameliorates

Figure 1—Customized customer relationship management—technology and knowledge transfer

(TKT) Model.
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Figure 2—Personalized interaction-technology and knowledge transfer (TKT) constructs.

perceived uncertainty and consequently perceived

vulnerability. Ultimately, trust implies a willingness to

accept vulnerability, with the expectation and confidence that an actor can rely on the other party. Trust can

change over time, evolving through stages of development, augmentation, and decay (Fukuyama 1995,

Rousseau et al. 1998). In our proposed model, antecedents (note that there can be additional antecedents) of

trust include (1) source credibility—can include both the

transfer source and TKT attributes and assets; however,

our emphasis is on the source; (2) dependability—is it in

the client’s best interest; is the transfer source dependable? (3) predictability—consistency of the relationship;

and (4) longevity—length of relationship; Will the TKT

provider be there during the long haul?

Perceived risk (fig. 2) is typically defined in a consumer context as perceptions of uncertainty and the

adverse consequences of buying a product or service

(i.e., an implicit assumption is that the probability and

outcome of the product purchase are uncertain) (Dowling

and Staelin 1994). In a TKT context, this is transitive,

where trust is defined as the “uncertainty and disadvantageous consequences of adopting a technology or

knowledge.” In our model, perceived risk has four

antecedents (again, note that there can be additional

antecedents) that can result in desirable or undesirable
5

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

consequences for our customers: (1) financial—does

the risk reward outweigh the actual costs or potential

deleterious effects; (2) social-psychological—social

norms, technology anxiety (substantial levels may lead

to TKT avoidance), or need for interaction (substantial

levels may decrease the need or the desire to try or learn)

(Meuter et al. 2005); (3) functionality—is this TKT

going to work? and (4) commitment—both personal

and from the TKT provider. As TKT providers, we must

recognize that the more revolutionary the technology,

the greater the incumbent risks of TKT adoption.

Trust and perceived risk must be addressed if we are

to improve exchange relationships and ultimately the

adoption of technology or knowledge. Perceived risk

may moderate and at the very least mediate trust. For

example, the financial and functionality antecedents

of perceived risk might directly influence trust (fig. 2).

Specifically, increased (and most probably unacceptable)

risk perceptions regarding financial costs and of perceived functionality (i.e., it will not work) might lead the

customer to have low levels of trust for both the TKT and

the transfer source. Conversely, a perception of overall

trust in the TKT provider may possibly decrease the

perceived risk of the TKT.

There are other factors that affect adoption; some

were previously discussed and are not included in the

following discourse. We present these for thought and

as assessment items. First, TKT innovation characteristics: compatibility, relative advantage, complexity,

observability, and trialability; secondly, individual

differences in our customers: inertia (may limit efforts

to learn) and previous experience (experienced users

may be more likely to try), and customer demographics.

Finally, customer readiness includes motivation

(extrinsic—motivated by self-interests; intrinsic—trying

new things or feelings of accomplishment) and ability

(having necessary skills and confidence) (Meuter et al.

2005). An understanding of the actor’s worldview affords

us the opportunity to “position” TKT in order to maximize the perceived benefits and minimize the perceived

costs.

Personalization

Personalization or “markets of one” is the premise of our

model. The personalization types of TKT developed for

each customer “moderates” the TKT process, and by

personal tailoring we envision trust levels increasing

and perceived risks to be ameliorated. The TKT provider’s value-added goals should include developing

long-term relationships with our customer, customer

satisfaction, and adoption of TKT by our customers

at some level. This also will necessitate a behavioral

change in us, the TKT provider, as it includes an implicit

disposition that the customer is a copartner and a

coproducer of value.

Personalization includes the following (and more):

inquisitive and active listening personnel, the means and

methods by which our customers acquire and use TKT,

and accordingly, a personalization of the TKT delivery

mechanism—making it unique for each individual consumer. At the crux of personalization is the nontrivial

action employed to achieve personalization with our

customers: discerning the consumer’s preference for

“who” delivers the TKT, what types of TKT they are

interested in, and “how” they prefer for TKT to be

delivered. Is TKT delivered via mail, personal interactions (in-house), webcasts, virtual simulations, site visits

(in-place), or company representatives, etc.? Personalization, in the form of individually tailored marketing

communications, should be more effective than mass

communication efforts (Peppers and Rogers 1993).

At the core of personalization is genuine discourse

with our customers to gain their input before, during,

and after TKT delivery. Without their essential information and partnering, we believe that most forms of TKT

will fail to be adopted, including personalization-based

efforts. We are striving for an exchange model of communication, a heterarchical relationship, with an egalitarian

connotation. That is, we do not speak with our customers

as strangers; rather, we speak to our customers as with our

close friends. In this manner, we are exchanging communication, we are exchanging information, and we are not
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

giving a lecture—a transmission model of exchange.

While this appears to be intuitive, it is not. We must

always be cognizant of the fact that transfer processes

that work for one customer may not be applicable to

others. The ultimate value of personalization is that it

is beneficial because individual tailoring can hasten the

adoption of TKT; exploring the impact of personalization also can help us understand the mechanisms that

affect the adoption of TKT.

Customer Relationship Management

Implementation

The model is very simple (fig. 1); initially the TKT

product is conceived by us or others and relationships

are developed. The “interaction” phase is next, this is

where our market research should be employed, as the

personalization of the TKT process should afford us

the knowledge and ability to successfully deliver the

product to our customer. Next, is the implementation of

the TKT by our client, which is a tangible TKT adoption.

Finally, as this is envisioned as an iterative process, our

continual interaction with our customers should result in

a sustainable relationship with the customer—a “WinWin” for all.

Conclusion

Every customer and organization has its own goals and

culture; there is not a single TKT or TKT process that

will “fit” all occasions and customers. This knowledge

“opens the door” for us to develop and improve TKT

delivery methods. Our argument is that developing

personalized TKT results in understanding our customers

at the most critical and basic levels. We gain knowledge

of their concerns and develop long-term relationships,

which should, in turn, foster trust in us. Finally, our

customers adopt TKT that allows them to successfully

compete in open economies.

Literature Citations

Alcalay, R.; Bell, R. 2000. Promoting nutrition and

physical activity through social marketing: current

practices and recommendations. Center for Advanced

Studies in Nutrition and Social Marketing. Davis,

CA: University of California, Davis. 106 p.

American Marketing Association. 2005. http://

www.marketingpower.com/. (February 14).

Argote, L.; Ingram, P. 2000. Knowledge transfer: a basis

for the competitive advantage of firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

82(1): 1–8.

Brown, J.; Dev, C.; Lee, D-J. 2000. Managing marketing

channel opportunism: the efficacy of alternative

governance mechanisms. Journal of Marketing.

64(2): 51–65.

Dodgson, M. 1993. Learning, trust, and technological

collaboration. Human Relations. 46(1): 77–96.

Dowling, G.; Staelin, R. 1994. A model of perceived risk

and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research. 21(1): 119–134.

Eisenhardt, K.; Martin, J. 2000. Dynamic capabilities:

What are they? Strategic Management Journal. 21:

1105-1121.

Fukuyama, F. 1995. Trust: the social virtues and the

creation of prosperity. New York: The Free Press.

480 p.

Galbraith, C. 1990. Core manufacturing technologies

in high-technology firms. California Management

Review. 32(4): 56–70.

Gibson, D.; Smilor, R. 1991. Key variables in technology transfer: a field-study based on empirical

analysis. Journal of Engineering and Technology

Management. (8): 287–312.
7

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Gummesson, E. 1998. Implementation requires a

relationship marketing paradigm. Academy of

Marketing Science Journal. 26(3): 242–248.

Gupta, A.; Wilemon, D.; Atuahene-Gima, K. 2000.

Excelling in R&D. Research Technology

Management. 43(3): 52–58.

Kotler, P.; Zaltman, G. 1971. Social marketing: an

approach to planned social change. Journal of

Marketing. 35(3): 3–12.

Meuter, M.; Bitner, M.; Ostrom, A.; Brown, S. 2005.

Choosing among alternative service delivery modes:

an investigation of customer self-service technologies. Journal of Marketing. 69(April): 61–83.

Moorman, C.; Zaltman, G.; Deshpandé, R. 1992.

Relationships between providers and users of market

research: the dynamics of trust within and between

organizations. Journal of Marketing Research.

29(August): 314–328.

Parkhe, A. 1993. Strategic alliance structuring: a game

theoretic and transaction cost examination of

interfirm cooperation. Academy of Management

Journal. 36(4): 794–829.

Peppers, D.; Rogers, M. 1993. The one to one future.

New York: Currency Doubleday. 421 p.

Peppers, D.; Rogers, M. 1997. Enterprise one to one.

New York: Currency Doubleday. 464 p.

Rogers, E. 1995. Diffusion of innovations, 4th ed. New

York: The Free Press. 519 p.

Rogers, E.; Shoemaker, F. 1973. Communication of

innovations: a cross-cultural approach. New York:

The Free Press. 476 p.

Rousseau, D.; Sitkin, S.; Burt, R. 1998. Not so different

after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of

Management Review. 23(3): 393–404.

Ruggles, R. 1998. The state of the notion: knowledge

management in practice. California Management

Review. 40(3): 80–89.

Shrum, L.; Lowery, T.; McCarty, J. 1994. Recycling

as a marketing problem: a framework for strategy

development. Psychology and Marketing. 11(4):

393–416.

Social Marketing Institute. 2005. http://www.socialmarketing.org/. (February 14).

Taylor, W. 1998. Permission marketing. Fast Company.

14(April-May): 198–212.

Williamson, O. 1985. The economic institutions of

capitalism–firms, markets, relational contracting.

New York: The Free Press. 440 p.

Zaltman, G.; Moorman, C. 1988. The role of personal

trust in the use of research. Journal of Advertising

Research. 28(5): 16–24.
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726
9

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Abstract

The traditional methods of transferring knowledge and

technology are publication in journals, symposia, and

field trips. Transfer of knowledge and technology is not

complete until the receiver accepts and applies the

material, or rejects it as inappropriate or inaccurate. In

this presentation, theories of adult learning and technology are reviewed and applied to forest science. Emphasized in this presentation are the importance of

application by peers and the relevance of the new

knowledge and technology to job-related problems.

Examples will be presented for the Forest Vegetation

Simulator, which illustrates multiple methods of technology transfer.

Keywords: Technology transfer, adult education,

vegetation simulation.

Introduction

Innovators of new information and technologies use

various techniques to get their products into use. Frequently, the technology transfer process either fails or

takes longer than desired. Understanding some key

concepts behind adult learning and technology transfer

theory can help explain possible reasons behind technology transfer successes and failures. In this symposium

you are likely to hear many stories about successful

technology transfer. Perhaps you can relate some of the

concepts discussed in this paper to those stories to help

1

Program manager, continuing education—UMOnline, The

University of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 59812; Tel:

406-243-6317; e-mail: ralph.johnson@umontana.edu.

2

Group leader for Forest Vegetation Simulation, Forest Management

Service Center, USDA Forest Service, 2150 Centre Avenue-Building

A, Fort Collins, CO 80526.

explain why those technology transfer efforts were a

success. A better understanding of these theories can also

shed light on why “one shot” technology transfer efforts

are often not successful.

Adult Education

Successful technology transfer has a strong adult education component. Individuals involved in technology

transfer need to be informed of new adult education

theories sufficiently so they truly understand what is

involved and how they might benefit. Knowles (1990)

suggested a series of characteristics that need to be

considered when teaching adults. These may seem like

common sense, but they are often overlooked when

designing a technology transfer program. Knowles

spelled out the following:

• Adults have a general need to be self-directing.

• People have an ever-increasing base of experience,

which they should use in making meaning of the

new topic they are learning.

• People are ready to learn when they have a need to

learn.

• Education is viewed as a process to be more

competent.

• Adults are motivated to learn by intrinsic factors.

• Adults need to know why the technology may be

useful to them.

If you’re promoting a new product or idea, addressing the above characteristics can factor into your marketing. In the area of forest yield projections, the 1960s and

1970s foresters had a wealth of experience using published yield tables. For the Pacific Northwest, the classic

Getting Technology Into Practice: Using Pre- and Posttraining

Activities

Ralph R. Johnson1 and Gary E. Dixon2
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

publication was Bulletin 201 (McArdle 1961). When the

first computerized yield processors like DFSIM (Curtis et

al. 1981) were produced, users of this technology had

personal experiences, either in school or on the job, in

the use of the published yield tables. Getting potential

users to implement this new technology into practice

was most successful with those who had the most to gain.

Perhaps their experiences indicated that paper methods

took too long and did not allow for sufficient complexity. At any rate, there was a motivating reason for potential users to try the new technology.

If your technology transfer methodology has

traditionally consisted of training sessions, literature

reviews indicate successful long-term change is generally poor (Baldwin and Ford 1988). In studies where

training was successful, the trainees personally valued

the training, attended on their own initiative, had

precourse discussions about the training, or there was a

favorable organizational climate back at the job site for

implementation. So again the trainees were motivated to

try the new technology.

Technology Transfer

One of the classic references in technology transfer

science is that of Rogers (2003). He suggested there are

classes of innovators as follows:

• Innovators

• Early adopters

• Early majority

• Late majority

• Laggards

We liken these to personality types but tempered by

the application. If you’re really excited about something,

you might be an innovator; if you’re cautious you might

be an early adopter, trying the technology only after

some of the innovators have tried it and succeeded; if

you are a pessimist you might be a late majority, trying

the technology only after it is in common use elsewhere;

if you are apathetic, you might be a laggard. In short,

there is a connection between a personality type and

the kind of innovator you are for a specific technology

transfer activity. But, a concept that Rogers’ presents that

is equally related to the adoption of innovations is something he refers to as phases of adoption. These are:

• Knowledge

• Persuasion

• Decision

• Implementation

• Confirmation

Many, if not most, technology transfer programs stop

at the persuasion stage. For example, the typical technology transfer consists of a short workshop on a Saturday, a

flyer distributed in the mail, or an article in a magazine.

The real work in technology transfer is getting people to

decide to use your new technology or information and

implement it. Moving from persuasion to confirmation

may take many steps such as field days, visits to peer

professionals, or more training even if there is a commitment to implement. The confirmation step may seem

unnecessary to the person passing on the technology.

However, this step can provide valuable feedback to the

developer. Users might adapt part, all, or modify your

idea to make it work in their situation. In some instances

they may choose to reject it as inappropriate or decide it

is no better than what they are currently doing. All of

these things would be valuable for you to know.

Although Rogers’ work forms the core of many

technology transfer activities, the real world presents

complexities. Stock and Tatikonda (2000) present the

idea of complexity and maturity of concept. Stock and

Tatikonda refer to complexity, novelty, and tacitness as

the metrics to describe complexity and maturity. These

ideas are especially true for new software. Think of the

differences between the purchase of a new upgrade to

your Windows© operating system or your first venture

into forestry cruising software. Or, how often have you

installed the newly upgraded version of a software product, only to find bugs; or worse, the new version breaks

something that was previously working fine. In Stock
11

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

and Tatikonda’s view, highly complex and immature

products need a different kind of technology transfer

effort. Rarely would a journal article or symposium

suffice for getting ideas into practice for complex items.

Stock and Tatikonda described four technology

process types. These are:

• Arms-length purchase

• Facilitated purchase

• Collaborative handoff

• Codevelopment

Suggested Models for Application and

Examples

Terez (2003) made some positive suggestions for implementing research findings in adult education and

technology transfer. He stated:

Perhaps there’s some worthwhile prep work that

attendees can do—a simple assignment that

requires them to get input from their colleagues.

This is a great way to heighten interest. During

the session, participants can work with the information. And in a post-session assignment, they

can report the findings at a staff meeting, using

the opportunity to share ideas and get people

involved in next steps.

A useful learning model that has wonderful application to the field of technology transfer is that of peer

learning. As the name implies, individuals learn from

their peers. It’s the old “two heads are better than one”

in action. Plus, for the cautious or pessimistic types,

there is comfort in company, when applying new technologies.

Early technology transfer theorists studied the

transfer of hybrid seed corn from new product to implementation. Once the bulk of the corn producers could

see for themselves how the new seed worked, they were

more likely to try it themselves. Farmers observed their

neighbor’s fields planted with the new hybrid seed.

Noting that it seemed to work, they tried a small plot on

their farm. Note that very few people converted their

whole operation over to the new seed. Once they were

convinced it was better by doing it themselves, then they

converted. You can expect similar results getting your

technologies adopted. Ottoson (1994) summarized the

actions you might take to increase the likelihood that

your technology transfer efforts will be successful (fig.

1). This work was targeted at continuing education of

professionals, and it has direct application of technology

transfer activities.

Our experiences with numerous technology transfer

activities, lead us to make a strong recommendation that

there are advantages to having a technically competent

third party actually engage in the transfer activities. We

have often seen the need to “de-jargon” publications to

make them understandable to the potential user group.

Although innovators might like technical descriptions,

other groups may find this step unnecessary. In production applications of new technology, this third party also

serves to note technical deficiencies and suggest solutions to the developer. Users might be more likely to give

honest feedback to a third party.

Examples of Technology Transfer Using the

Forest Vegetation Simulator

The Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) (Dixon 2002) is

a collection of computer modules that assist forest land

managers looking at alternative management scenarios.

The staff supporting FVS designed their technology

transfer efforts around the adult education and technology transfer ideas noted above. In addition, various

forest scientists have embedded highly complex concepts into the FVS system.

This is an example of the basic technology being

developed by one group, Forest Service research, and

implemented by a third party specializing in technology

transfer. The staff supporting FVS was recognized with

the Chief’s award for excellence in technology transfer in
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Figure 1—Strategies to facilitate the transfer of learning before, during, and after adult education programs. (source: Ottoson 1994)
13

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

1991 and 1993, and the Secretary of Agriculture Superior

Service Award in 2001. The success of the FVS program

in technology transfer lends credence to the ideas

presented above.

Training Sessions

Forest Vegetation Simulator instructors are encouraged

to:

• Learn about their students prior to the training

session.

• Adapt course content to meet the needs of the

students.

• Use relevant examples in the course.

• Relate course topics to students problems.

• Allow time for students to reflect on content and

suggest application.

• Make themselves available before and after sessions

for assistance.

• Use teaching methods that link peers in small

groups.

Students are encouraged to:

• Bring a work-related problem with them.

• Apply the concepts shortly on returning to work.

• Make peer contacts for help in postsession activities.

• Ask the instructor to adapt course content to their

specific problems.

Embedding Highly Complex Technology

As noted by Stock and Tatikonda, complex technology

requires special efforts. In forest mensuration, there has

been a transition from direct volume estimators to stem

profile models to calculate tree volumes. Recently, the

Inland Northwest Growth and Yield Cooperative developed a full suite of taper models for commercial conifer

species. There is really little need for field foresters to

understand the mathematical equations, and it would be

extremely difficult for most individuals to do the math.

The resulting equations may be more accurate than those

they are currently using, but they might reject the project

because it is far more difficult to use and understand than

what they are currently doing. The staff supporting FVS

embedded the models into the FVS modeling system that

many field foresters already understand. To the FVS user,

the transfer of taper function technology was simple and

transparent, even though the taper technology itself is

very complex.

Transferring Evolving Technology

The Joint Fire Sciences Program recently produced an

extension to FVS for use in assessing the impact of fire

on forest management actions. The initial computer

code, although “tested” for bugs, had not been used in

production situations. It is also an example of developers

planning from the beginning to use a third party for technology transfer. With this technology, the FVS staff took

its technical support staff out to field sites. Working with

resource professionals, the technical experts assisted

with the technology transfer operation. When bugs surfaced, the FVS staff worked with the developers to find

solutions. Even for field staff, who Rogers would have

labeled innovators, the likelihood of moving from

knowledge to implementation would have been small

without this technology transfer effort.

Based on my experiences with FVS in the technology transfer field, we would add a recommendation for

developers of complex and unstable technologies to

work closely with the technology innovators throughout

the development process. In the event things do not work

out, development can be modified, or in extreme cases

halted, and there won’t be a sour taste with the broader

set of users. Innovators are happy to assist in this role and

are not adversely affected when things do not go as

planned.

Parting Comments

We hope you consider the following after you leave this

conference:

• When using training sessions to pass on your

technologies, keep the topics relevant to the

students.
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

• When you have complex technologies, start first by

passing them on to the innovators. Don’t stop until

the early adopters have bought in. Then peer

interaction will help with the transfer.

• When you have complex technologies, use an

intermediary to assist the transfer.

• When you have complex technologies, find existing

processes to embed them in (making for a

transparent transfer).

• Remember most potential recipients have a process

they are already using. What you are offering has to

be better, faster, or easier.

• Technology transfer will be much easier if the

recipients are in need of your technology.

• Each evening of this conference review your notes

and the abstracts to reinforce the material presented.

• Within 1 week of leaving this conference, review the

abstracts and your notes and plan how you will

apply at least one concept presented.

Literature Cited

Baldwin, T.T.; Ford, J.K. 1988. Transfer of training, a

review and directions for future research. Personnel

Psychology. 41: 63–105.

Curtis, R.O.; DeMars, D.J.; Clendenen, G.W. 1981. A

new stand simulator for coast Douglas-fir: DFSIM

user’s guide. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest

and Range Experiment Station. 79 p.

Dixon, G.E., comp. 2002. Essential FVS: a user’s guide

to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal Rep. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Forest Management Service Center. 196 p.

(Last revised: October 2004)

Knowles, M. 1990. The adult learner: a neglected

species. 4th ed. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. 293 p.

McArdle, R.E.; Meyer, W.H.; Bruce, D. 1961. The yield

of Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest. Tech. Bull.

201. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 74 p.

Ottoson, J. 1994. Transfer of learning: not just an

afterthought. Adult Learning. March/April: 21.

Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New

York: Free Press. 551 p.

Stock, G.N.; Tatikonda, M.V. 2000. A typology of

project-level technology transfer processes. Journal

of Operations Management. 18: 719–737.

Terez, T. 2003. Putting the “work” back in workshop:

how to turn training sessions into true learning

experiences. Tom Terez Workplace Solutions, Inc.

http://www.tomterez.com/workshops.pdf.
15

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Applied Science and Technology Transfer for Avoided Costs and

Protected Forest Values

Bruce Lippke,1 Alicia Robbins,2 and Larry Mason3

present a sample of nonmarket valuation methods for

forest and forest product attributes as examples of how

interdisciplinary applied science and technology is

critical both to the valuation process and the decisionsupport context. The goal is to demonstrate how technology can be used to help analyze the complexities of

management choices associated with the sustainable

management of multiple values.

Keywords: Forestry technology transfer, applied

science, nonmarket values, avoided costs, environmental

services, cost/benefit analysis, forest fires, sustainability.

The Importance of Understanding Values

Created by Forest Management

Forests provide a number of market and nonmarket

values that benefit both consumers and the general

public. Market benefits include products and services

that can be bought and sold, such as timber and

nontimber forest products. These market benefits are

determined by public demand and can be relatively

easily assessed for comparable value by using existing

market price data. Nonmarket benefits include essential

environmental services such as clean air and water,

carbon sequestration, aesthetics, habitat, biodiversity

protection, fire avoidance, and others.

However, pricing nonmarket benefits and services

supplied by forests, although very much in public

demand, can be problematic owing to their nontraded

nature. Nonetheless, nonmarket values can be quite high

as evidenced by policies to protect nontraded resources

such as air, water, and wildlife habitat. Integrating the

benefits of nonmarket values and market values inevitably changes the definition and selection of best management practices.

Abstract

Applied science and technology transfer in support of

healthy forests and rural communities includes more

than the training of individuals to use the latest equipment or software products. Success will ultimately be

measured not in user adoption statistics but in the degree

to which forest practices and public expectations are

aligned over the long term. Public expectations are

focused on many nonmarket values like clean air, water,

and habitat protection. Therefore, those in the business

of forest science and technology transfer assume certain

responsibilities for providing the best scientific information available in a form that supports the empowerment

of interested publics, professionals, and policymakers to

achieve the greatest good. First, we must contribute to

the development of a common understanding of the

present circumstances. Secondly, we must assist with

knowledge and tools needed to develop decisionsupport systems at appropriate scales of temporal and

spatial complexity. A successful society must be served

by scientific knowledge, understanding, and predictive

ability such that informed decisions can be made that

evaluate alternatives and tradeoffs.4 In this paper, we will

1 Director, Rural Technology Initiative, College of Forest Resources,

University of Washington, Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195-2100;

Tel: 206-543-8684; e-mail: blippke@u.washington.edu

2

Program manager, Center for Sustainable Forestry at Pack Forest,

College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Box 352100,

Seattle, WA 98195-2100.

3

Project coordinator, Rural Technology Initiative, College of Forest

Resources, University of Washington, Box 352100, Seattle, WA

98195-2100.

4

 Kimmins et al. 2005, Guldin et al. 2005
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

For example, if the avoided cost of fighting fires were

available in the market as an offset to the cost of removing overly dense ladder fuels, more fire-prone forests

would be thinned thus reducing fire risk while also contributing to the public understanding and support for

such investments (Mason et al. 2006). Providing incentives to produce forest aesthetic and biodiversity attributes that the public values would motivate different

management pathways other than short rotations (Lippke

et al. 1999). Constructing buildings to the public’s high

environmental standards would require different product

purchases and processing investments; in many cases,

wood products would be selected for having higher

overall environmental performance (Lippke et al. 2004).

This paper examines several areas where nonmarket

values are important and discusses public demand for

such benefits and services with the objective of revealing

the importance of these values in decisionmaking and

the critical integration role for applied science and

technology transfer.

What Do Markets Pay For?

It is generally understood that markets facilitate the buying and selling of goods and services at market-established prices. Members of the public are well acquainted

with supply and demand. Schumpeter (1954) told us that

market signals or “positive” economics explain relative

value by establishing price. Market goods from forests

include timber and fiber used for building products,

paper, cardboard, industrial chemicals, and biofuel for

renewable energy products. Nontimber products such as

natural foods and flora as well as recreational amenities

derived from the forest may also be bought and sold for

commercial purposes. In addition to direct production

costs, prices established for timber and nontimber products should include all other ancillary costs associated

with ownership and management incurred as a result of

regulatory compliance, liability risk avoidance, or other

factors. For example, modern forest management costs

might include insurance to reduce the risk of damage as

a result of litigation in courts or additional staffing

with relevant expertise to reduce the risk of (perceived

or real) negative impacts on surrounding neighbors or

the public. Another example might be higher costs

associated with alternative, lower impact harvesting

practices or forest certification audits. In the market,

cost/benefit relationships are dynamic. When factors

of production fail to earn marginal profit, the product

ceases to be made available. Conversely, if demand

(i.e., market price) increases then so does the quantity

of products supplied.

What Do Markets Not Pay For?

Forest product prices do not include the value of the

numerous public benefits that forests provide such as

clean air and water, habitat protection and biodiversity,

recreation and aesthetics. Nor do they include the

benefits derived from avoiding the high public cost of

forest fires associated with fire suppression, fatalities,

habitat and facility destruction, and postfire restoration.

Forests are often managed to provide opportunities for

recreational activities and public enjoyment of forest

aesthetics and scenic beauty that (aside from nominal

user fees) may not be captured as market prices reflective

of intrinsic value (Garber-Yonts et al. 2004, Laband

2003, Pagiola et al. 2004). Life cycle analysis has shown

that products made of wood are renewable and are more

environmentally-friendly than building products such

as steel studs or concrete walls (Lippke et al. 2004);

however, the market currently delivers no premium for

this environmental contribution, which is also generally

not revealed to the public. Such forest “products” are not

sold through organized markets, yet there is strong

public demand for their environmental attributes.

Schumpeter (1954) told us that such deliverables fall

into the realm of “welfare” economics, which prescribe

rather than explain value. As the complexity and disagreement surrounding forest management (especially

on public lands) increases, it is apparent that better

agreement on valuation methodologies and cost/benefit

relationships that include a broad view of public values

could be helpful.
17

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Recognizing Avoided Costs of Fire Suppression as Public Value

Although “welfare” economics may not be explained by

market prices, there are nonetheless real costs associated.

Suppression of forest fires, for example, can be quite expensive. Added to risk to public resources are forest fire

threats to human life, wildlife, and habitat. It has been

shown that there is a public willingness to pay (WTP)

for fire hazard reduction (Winter and Fried 2001), yet no

value for fire hazard reduction has been adopted into the

market even though there are readily available cost estimates for at least some of the costs that result from not

reducing fire risk. It is estimated that for the period 1999

through 2002, the average cost of firefighting for the

Washington State Department of Natural Resources was

approximately $2,000 per acre (Washington State DNR

2004). A study of federal forests in Washington and

Oregon found the average cost of fire suppression for

the Forest Service to be over $1,000 per acre (Mason et

al. 2003). The severity and incidence of fighting fires

can be reduced by management treatments (Rummer et

al. 2002), yet associated avoided costs are not included

in cost/benefit analysis of investments in fuel reduction

treatments. Better understanding of such relationships

could lead to healthier forests and public savings with

applied science and technology transfer as the critical

agents to produce the required information. The valuation of fire risk reduction is developed here as an example that can be extended to other nonmarket value

benefits.

Nonmarket Benefits of Reduced Fire Risk

Removal of small-diameter trees to reduce hazardous

fuel conditions is known to be costly. Large trees can

be removed for their lumber and other product values

as reflected in the market; however, the market value for

smaller logs is often less than the harvest and hauling

charges. As a tradeoff, failure to remove small-diameter

trees results in the retention of fuels that support the

transfer of ground fire to crown fire and aggravate

negative wildfire impacts to the landscape (Omi and

Martinson 2002, Peterson et al. 2005). Unfortunately,

the market does not automatically reflect the value of

negative environmental consequences that result from

crown fires. If the negative impacts that result from crown

fires were fully reflected in the market, there would be

much higher motivation to avoid them, providing the

necessary incentive to remove high fuel loads in spite of

the cost.

Land management decisions aimed at reducing the

risk of fire can have a high benefit-to-cost ratio, if all

market and nonmarket costs and benefits are included.

First, the cost of fighting fire could and should be considered a cost of not removing high fuel loads. Mason et

al. 2003 developed a parametric approach to assist interested publics and policymakers in quick estimation of

relative costs and benefits associated with fuel reduction

treatments. A look-up table was developed to estimate

the present value of avoided future costs at an assumed

discount rate. The independent variable is time-to-fire.

With this table, users can estimate costs for a particular

event at a predicted time or, by choosing as the temporal

target the midpoint of an equal probability distribution,

the cumulative cost exposure for a landscape can be

approximated where each acre is expected to burn at

some time over a designated period.

Mason et al. (2003) demonstrated this methodology

for the present value of the public savings associated

with fire risk avoidance on federal forests. By using recent experience on firefighting costs of $1,000 per acre

and high-hazard forests (those likely to burn within 30

years) and moderate-hazard forests (those likely to burn

within 60 years) an estimate of the magnitude of the resulting public liability exposure can be readily developed. The resulting estimated present values of future

fire suppression costs are $481 per acre for a high-risk

forest (with 15 years as the distribution midpoint) and

$231 per acre for a moderate-risk forest (with 30 years

as the distribution midpoint). Fuel reduction treatments

such as thinning the smaller trees while leaving a basal
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

area of 40 to 60 square feet per acre have been shown

to reduce the ladder fuels that trigger crown fires and

produce some log revenue (Fiedler et al. 2001). When

we add the present value of estimated fire suppression

cost avoidance to net return from sale of harvested

merchantable logs, we have successfully characterized a

combined market (positive economics) and nonmarket

(welfare economics) public cost/benefit analysis. Such a

framework is essential for integrated evaluation of forest

management alternatives.

There are many other nonmarket values associated

with the reduction of fire risk important to forest owners

and to society at large (Pfilf et al. 2002). For example,

there is a financial value of avoiding facility losses and

human fatalities. Communities value a lower fire risk and

reduced smoke. Habitats for threatened and endangered

species that are valued by many publics may be lost to

wildfires. Fires reduce the carbon stored in the forest and

the opportunity to produce long-lasting pools of carbon

stored in products. Fires consume biomass that might

otherwise be used for energy conversion and green

energy credits. Regeneration after fires can be problematic and costs are high. Postfire rehabilitation may be

needed to avoid serious erosion, water contamination

from excessive sediment, and invasion of exotic species.

If there are harmful impacts from thinning treatments

they can be incorporated as well.

Where future costs (losses) can be identified for these

and other values, then cumulative present-value liability

estimates can be approximated and the relative costs and

benefits of management alternatives better understood.

Mason et al. (2003) created an accounting ledger for

cost/benefit analysis of fuels reduction investments per

acre on federal forests to demonstrate how avoided costs

and nonmarket values might be better considered as real

returns on management investments. Although management costs of $580 per acre are charged for fuel reductions and no net market returns are credited from log

sales, the magnitude of protected values and avoided

costs they estimated was large, $1,402 over the investment cost of thinning on high-risk stands and $606 net

on moderate-risk stands. An alternative way to view the

investment is as a payback time to breakeven chart (fig.

1). Considering only the avoided firefighting cost, it

takes about 10 years to break even with the initial

investment in fire risk reduction, but as other avoided

costs (or values) are included, the payback is much

quicker.

However, under current market mechanisms (that

exclude nonmarket values), forest owners/managers

may not adequately benefit from forestry investments to

avoid costs as they absorb all the market costs while the

nonmarket values flow to other stakeholders. The effective result is a disincentive for sustainable forest management based in an irreconcilable tension between what

the public pays versus what the public desires.

Other Examples of Nonmarket Tradeoffs

Although WTP studies may overestimate actual consumer behavior, experimental choice surveys, a specialized form of Contingent Valuation Analysis (CVA),

provide a means of allowing survey respondents to

choose the best among many different treatments,

thereby demonstrating a means of ranking different

environmental attributes (Green and Srinivasan 1990).

For example, a mail survey conducted in Washington

state asked rural and urban families to select the best

of different forest management alternatives that altered

forest attributes. Respondents selected from different

tradeoffs of biodiversity and habitat, aesthetics, rural

jobs, cost, and a brand label for the treatments (Xu et

al. 2003). The result showed a substantial WTP for

biodiversity/habitat and aesthetics restoration, as well as

a willingness to accept a level of cost and job losses to

achieve these benefits. A WTP of more than $100 per

year per family for aesthetics and habitat restoration was

not uncommon with the amount sensitive to the location

of the family (urban/rural) and their income.
19

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Another example is a recent study that used results

from life cycle assessments (Lippke et al. 2004) and a

choice-based, stated preference approach and basic

consumer demand theory, to analyze household preferences for reductions in environmental emissions from

building products (Robbins and Perez-Garcia 2005). By

means of a national mail survey, respondents were asked

to assess a set of goods with different levels of emissions

and price attributes; they were then asked to choose their

most preferred alternative. Four price levels, four environmental levels (including a baseline no-change

scenario) for four environmental attributes (greenhouse

gas emissions, solid wastes, clean water, and air particulates) were included in each of the 15 choice sets. The

results of this survey suggest that consumers are sensitive

to differences in the amounts and favor building materials with lower greenhouse gas emissions and other

environmental burdens over those resulting in higher

burdens.

These types of experimental choice studies can help

demonstrate specific public preferences and values in

order to improve targeted educational and training

programs. Management can be geared to provide or

improve values such as those described above (aesthetics, biodiversity, or reduced greenhouse gas emissions);

marketing can be directed to improve public information

so consumers have a better understanding of the true

costs of their purchasing decisions.

Technology Development and Transfer

Integrated approaches to modern forest management

require the support of software products with the capability to test treatment alternatives and project results

forward in time with growth and yield models. Interested

members of the lay public as well as forestry professionals and policymakers must be informed of present conditions and future possibilities such that choices for action

Figure 1—Buildup of nonmarket values from thinning treatment to reduce fire risk.
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

are not confusing and subject to distrust. Effectiveness

will depend on egalitarian availability and transparency

of forest modeling technologies. Both formal and

informal delivery partnerships are evolving.

For example, the USDA Forest Service has spent

years developing and refining the Forest Vegetation

Simulator (FVS) as a publicly available growth-andyield model with variants for most areas in North

America (Dixon 2003). The Fire and Fuels Extension

(FFE) has also been developed by the USDA Forest

Service for use with FVS to assess risk, behavior, and

impact of fire in forest ecosystems (Reinhardt and

Crookston 2003).

On a parallel track, has been development of the

user-friendly Landscape Management System (LMS) at

the University of Washington (McCarter 2001). Because

these systems project tree list responses, they are especially important tools for quantifying forest structure

attributes important to many environmental values,

such as habitat suitability, fire, and aesthetics. The Rural

Technology Initiative (RTI) at the University of Washington and Washington State University provides workshops

and training sessions to help the public learn how to use

forestry software products such as FVS, FFE, and LMS.

When these public domain software products are

brought together and made available through public

training programs such as those described above, the

resulting technology and applied science transfer

empowers local participation in fuel reduction planning.

For people concerned about forests but not inclined to

use software, process empowerment also occurs when

scientific findings are made available and linked to

transparent and replicable methodologies including

visual displays and templates.

Conclusions

The challenge of developing long-term strategies to

reduce wildfire risks across tens of millions of acres of

inland West forest, to enhance the public’s understanding of the existing tradeoffs between biodiversity

protection while eliminating jobs, and to improve consumer product information, is daunting. The body of

information to be considered is huge, and the planning

process may be formidable. Infrastructure is limited,

funding is scarce, costs high, and conflicts rampant

(USDA Forest Service 2002). Strategies to help professionals, publics, and policymakers gain better understanding of the present circumstances and the future

possibilities of adjustment would be helpful. New technology applications are providing the definition of

variables needed to estimate many nonmarket values

and the benefits that can be gained by including them

in management decisions. It is important to understand

the value of these benefits and to integrate them with the

other needs of consumers and forest managers. Ignoring

these values because they may be more difficult to

quantify, results in poor management practices and

unintended consequences.

As an example, for Washington state alone, we

could expect that close to $1 billion in potential firefighting costs could be avoided with implementation

of publicly supported proactive fuel reduction treatments (Washington State DNR 2004). There are additional nonmarket benefits associated with targeted forest

biomass removals like green energy, protecting habitat,

aesthetics, and reduced smoke. In terms of aesthetics and

biodiversity, the analysis indicates that public valuation

of forests could be increased by $1 to $2 billion per year

by motivating more alternative management practices

(Lippke et al. 1999). This net benefit includes the value

for increasing biodiversity and aesthetics less the value

lost from lower employment and higher costs accumulated across all residents of the state as measured in the

survey described above.

The Nation’s investment in just residential construction is $750 billion per year (USDI Bureau of Economic

Analysis 2006); integrating consumer demand for green

building products can lead to a significant change in the

distribution of market share if accompanied by changes
21

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

in perceived public value. Decisions to build and buy

houses that do not consider environmental burdens

misdirect purchases to products that are fossil fuel

intensive instead of using renewable resources for buildings and green energy. As a result, even as the movement

to curb carbon emissions gains momentum, such emissions will, in fact, continue to increase. Purchasing

standards could better reflect recent scientific findings

by using labels to identify products with lighter environmental burdens. This would enable nonmarket values to

be internalized into consumer decisions.

Applied science and technology transfer toward

building a better understanding of value tradeoffs will

help the public, policymakers, and forestry professionals

develop a common understanding of management

options. Without such assistance, the complexity of

disparate valuation systems against a backdrop of broad

landscapes and extended timeframes will leave us

arguing about what is out there today rather than developing a vision for how we could manage forests tomorrow.

Metric Equivalents

1 acre = 0.405 hectares

Literature Cited

Dixon, G.E. 2003. Essential FVS: a user’s guide to the

Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal Rep. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Forest Management Service Center. 193 p.

http://www.fs.fed.us/fmsc/fvs/. (16 April).

Fiedler, C.; Keegan C., III; Woodall, C. 2001. A

strategic assessment of fire hazard in Montana. Joint

Fire Sciences Program Report. Missoula, MT:

University of Montana. http://jfsp.nifc.gov/

documents/NMreport.pdf. (16 April 2006).

Garber-Yonts, B.; Kerkvliet, J.; Johnson, R. 2004.

Public values for biodiversity conservation policies

in the Oregon Coast Range. Forest Science. 50(5):

589–602.

Green, P.; Srinivasan, V. 1990. Conjoint analysis in

marketing: new developments with implications for

research and practice. Journal of Marketing. 54(4):

3–19.

Guldin, R.; Parrotta, J.; Hellström, E. 2005. Working

effectively at the interface of forest science and forest

policy; guidance for scientists and research

organizations. IUFRO Occasional Paper No. 17.

Vienna: International Union of Forest Research

Organizations. 29 p.

Kimmins, J.; Welham, C.; Seely, B.; Meitner, M.;

Rempel, R.; Sullivan, T. 2005. Science in forestry:

Why does it sometimes disappoint or even fail us?

The Forestry Chronicle. 81(5): 723–734.

Laband, D. 2003. Regulating biodiversity: tragedy in

the political commons. Reprinted. In: Easton, T.;

Goldfarb, T., eds. Taking sides: clashing views on

controversial environmental issues. 10th ed. Guilford,

CT: McGraw-Hill. 400 p.

Lippke, B.; Bare, B.; Xu, W.; Moffett, J.; Turner, B.

1999. The joint production of timber and environmental values: demonstration for the westside of

Washington state. In: Yoshimoto, A.; Yukutake, K.,

eds. Global concerns for forest resource utilization:

sustainable use and management. The Netherlands:

Kluwer Academic Publishers: 295–309.

Lippke, B.; Wilson, J.; Perez-Garcia, J.; Bowyer, J.;

Meil, J. 2004. CORRIM: life-cycle environmental

performance of renewable building materials. Forest

Products Journal. 54(6): 8–20.
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Mason, L.; Ceder, K.; Rogers, H.; Bloxton, T.;

Comnick, J.; Lippke, B.; McCarter, J.; Zobrist, K.

2003. Investigation of alternative strategies for

design, layout and administration of fuel removal

projects. Seattle, WA: Rural Technology Initiative,

College of Forest Resources, University of

Washington. 78 p.

Mason, L.; Lippke, B.; Zobrist, K.; Bloxton, T.; Ceder,

K.; Comnick, J.; McCarter, J.; Rogers, H. 2006.

Investments in fuel removals to avoid forest fires

result in substantial benefits. Journal of Forestry.

104(1): 27–31.

McCarter, J. 2001. Landscape management system

(LMS): background, methods, and computer tools for

integrating forest inventory, GIS, growth and yield,

visualization and analysis for sustaining multiple

forest objectives. Seattle, WA: University of

Washington. 101 p. Ph.D. dissertation. http://

lms.cfr.washington.edu/.

Omi, P.; Martinson, E. 2002. Effect of fuels treatment on

wildfire severity. Joint Fire Sciences Program Report.

http://jfsp.nifc.gov/JFSP_Products_3.htm. (16 April

2006).

Pagiola, S.; von Ritter, K.; Bishop, J. 2004. Assessing

the economic value of conservation. Environment

Department Paper No. 101. Washington, DC: The

World Bank.

Peterson, D.; Johnson, M.; Agee, J.; Jain, T.; McKenzie,

D.; Reinhardt, E. 2005. Forest structure and fire

hazard in dry forests of the Western United States.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-628. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 30 p. http://

www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/8572. (16 April 2006).

Pfilf, R.; Marker, J.; Averill, R. 2002. Forest health and

fire: an overview and evaluation. Chantilly, VA:

National Association of Forest Service Retirees.

http://www.fsx.org/NAFSRforesthealth.pdf. (16 April

2006).

Reinhardt, E.; Crookston, N., tech. eds. 2003. The Fire

and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation

Simulator. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-116. Ogden,

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 209 p. http://

forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/gems/RMRS-GTR116.pdf. (16 April 2006).

Robbins, A.; Perez-Garcia, J. 2005. Consumer willingness to pay for renewable building materials: an

experimental choice analysis and survey. Seattle,

WA: Center for International Trade in Forest

Products, College of Forest Resources, University of

Washington. 65 p.

Rummer, R.; Prestmon, J.; May, D.; Sheppard, W. 2002.

A strategic assessment of forest biomass and fuel

reduction treatments in Western States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 21 p. http://

www.fs.fed.us/research/pdf/Western_final.pdf.

(16 April 2006).

Schumpeter, J. 1954. History of economic analysis.

Schumpete, E.B., ed. New York: Oxford University

Press. 1260 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002.

The process predicament: how statutory, regulatory,

and administrative factors affect national forest

management. Washington, DC. 40 p. http://

www.fs.fed.us/projects/documents/ProcessPredicament.pdf. (16 April 2006).
23

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic

Analysis. 2006. Gross domestic product statistics.

http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm.

(16 April).

Winter, G.; Fried, J. 2001. Estimating contingent values

for protection from wildland fire using a two-stage

decision framework. Forest Science. 47(3): 349–360.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources

[DNR]. 2004. A desirable forest health program for

Washington’s forests. Forest Health Strategy Working

Group Report. Olympia, WA. 63 p.

Xu, W.; Lippke, B.; Perez-Garcia, J. 2003. Valuing

biodiversity, aesthetics and job losses associated

with ecosystem management using stated

preferences. Forest Science. 49(2): 247–257.
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726
25

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Best Practices: Theories From the Field

Viviane Simon-Brown1and A. Scott Reed2

Introduction

What constitutes “best practices” in a knowledge transfer

program? What contributions have knowledge transfer

practitioners made to the body of knowledge transfer

theories? This paper first acknowledges the work of

several extension practitioners who have successfully

worked with adult learners, modified existing theories to

meet immediate needs, and when necessary, created their

own theories to explain why some techniques work and

others fail. It then illustrates how combining their concepts into knowledge-transfer programming design

creates cohesive and balanced adult education.

The practitioners include:

• Eric Norland and Jim Johnson for their parallel work

in identifying best practices in forestry extension,

and Norland’s work on evaluation methods for

extension.

• Bill Hubbard for his work in understanding and

overcoming forestry technology transfer barriers in

the United States.

• Tony Faast for his fair-open-honest public policy

concept.

• David deYoe for his analysis of the roles within the

knowledge exchange system.

• John Garland and Paul Adams for their work on

determining the credibility of research-based

information.

• Scott Reed for adapting current knowledge transfer

theory to the needs of landscape ecologists.

Learner-Centric Education

Effective knowledge-transfer programs do not focus not

on what the educator wants to teach! (Norland 2003).

Abstract

What constitutes “best practices” in knowledge transfer

programs? This paper acknowledges the contributions of

practitioners to the body of knowledge transfer theoretical concepts, and synthesizes their ideas into three

fundamental attributes: learner-centric, credible researchbased information, and rigorous evaluation. Essential

steps in developing learner-centric education programming are conducting ongoing needs identification,

creating positive learner environments, incorporating

various teaching modalities to accommodate different

learning styles, adapting to the independent selfdirecting nature of adult learners, adopting a “less is

more” philosophy, and documenting personal and group

achievements.

Credible research-based programs are not prescriptive. Rather, they offer audiences a continuum of alternatives with their consequences and the diagnostic tools to

distinguish the plus/minus values of the choices and

make wise decisions. Rigorous evaluation helps to make

programs more effective, refine activities and delivery

methods to achieve better results, assess the extent of

usage by the audience, and answer the question: Is my

program making a difference? Adding a fair-open-honest

teaching philosophy changes a typical knowledgetransfer situation into a transformative knowledge

exchange.

Keywords: Knowledge-transfer practices, learnercentric, research-based information, evaluation, fairopen-honest philosophy.

1

Associate professor, Oregon State University, Forestry Extension,

Peavy 007, Corvallis, OR 97331; Tel: 541-737-3197; e-mail:

viviane.simon-brown@oregonstate.edu.

2

Associate dean and Forestry Extension program leader, College of

Forestry, Oregon State University, Peavy 150, Corvallis, OR 97331.
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

They focus on what the learner needs in order to develop

knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors. The best

programs happen when the audience and the knowledgetransfer professional freely exchange information,

experiences, and problemsolving insights.

Essential steps in developing learner-centric education programming are:

• Conduct ongoing needs identification.

• Create positive learner environments.

• Incorporate various teaching modalities to

accommodate learning styles.

• Adapt to the independent, self-directing nature of

adult learners both in methodologies and

technologies.

• Adopt “less-is-more” philosophy.

• Document personal and group achievements.

Conduct Ongoing Needs Identification

Excellent knowledge-transfer programming begins with

issues identification (deYoe and Hollstedt 2003). Program topics come from stakeholders, policymakers,

researchers, and the knowledge-transfer professionals

themselves. Informal ways of garnering information

include individual telephone calls, unplanned encounters, or unsolicited emails from clients. Focus groups,

interviews, and surveys constitute more formal inquiry

methods.

With traditional audiences, stakeholders should be

involved in the entire program design process from

needs assessment through implementation and evaluation (Johnson 2003). This approach works well with

known audiences. It is far more difficult to connect with

potential new audiences. Identifying and contacting

interest groups, corporations, professional and nonprofit

organizations, resource users, community and political

leaders, and other education professionals within the

same arena are effective means of expanding beyond the

traditional client base.

Create Positive Learner Environments

Creating a safe and motivating intellectual environment

for thoughtful exploration of knowledge is key to personalizing learning. Physical well-being is similarly

important. If the audience is attending after-work classes,

then comfortable seating, access to refreshments, not too

long nor too short classes, all become important components of the knowledge transfer. Meeting the spirit as

well as the law of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA) is also crucial (Simon-Brown 1999).

Adult learners arrive with broad and diverse sets of

values, beliefs, and life experiences—both positive and

negative—that impact their ability to learn (Norland

2003). For many adults, a teacher lecturing in front of a

classroom is intimidating. The positioning implies that

the knowledge is being transferred in only one way—

from teacher to student. Successful adult programming

takes into consideration the participants’ practical

knowledge. Discussing at the beginning of a program

what the participants know about the topic creates an

exchange of knowledge, which recognizes their contributions to the process; and enables the knowledgetransfer professional to adapt the programming based

on what was said. This enriches the learning experience

for all.

Incorporate Learning Styles Methods

People perceive and process information in different

ways. Understanding these differences and incorporating learning style methodologies enhances knowledge

transfer. In the United States, lecture remains the dominant teaching method, even though approximately onehalf of the U.S. population does not process information

verbally (Simon-Brown 1999). To overcome this deficiency and to stimulate retention, knowledge-transfer

professionals incorporate a variety of techniques in each
27

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

session. These include hands-on activities; varying

individual, small group, and larger group work; practicing active listening; offering both practical and conceptual information; conducting field trips; encouraging

journaling and role-playing; and creating

problemsolving teams.

Adapt to the Independent, Self-Directing Nature

of Adult Learners

Adult learners are problemsolvers (Reed 1999). Learning

concepts only work if it’s clear to the learners that the

concept is a necessary step toward solving the problem.

Knowing information for information’s sake is not the

norm; the information must be meaningful to them in

their present situation. Motivated adult learners incorporate new information into what they already know for

action-oriented solutions.

Electronic technologies enhance knowledge-transfer

professionals’ capacity to accommodate these “just-intime” learner needs. Tools of the trade can be synchronous or asynchronous. Synchronous—or simultaneous—

tools include teleconferencing, real-time World Wide

Web work, and satellite linkages. Asynchronous—not

simultaneous—approaches such as the Web, videostreaming, email listservs, virtual field trips, videoconferencing, cable TV, CDs, and DVDs, can also be

effective; with the caveat that the best practices critical

to successful knowledge transfer are included in the

package.

Adopt “Less-Is-More” Philosophy

One of the most difficult techniques for knowledgetransfer professionals to master is “less is more.” It is

more useful to learners to cover less information and to

explore the meaning of that information than it is to rush

through a large amount of material (Norland 2003).

Teaching the major concepts and then providing students with the “how-to” tools to locate the specific

information they need is one way to overcome the need

to “tell all.” Providing a myriad of optional indepth

background materials is another way to minimize

nonessential instruction. Modeling is a third way. In

modeling, the knowledge-transfer professional through

his or her actions, demonstrates the planning, organizational, and decisionmaking strategies that are being

taught.

Document Personal and Group Achievements

Effective knowledge transfer acknowledges, formally and

informally, learning milestones. Documenting learning

by using certificates or credentialing is valued, both

within the educational setting and by the larger external

community. Although participants acquire a sense of

accomplishment, credentials reinforce the value of and

legitimize the knowledge-transfer experience.

Credible Research-Based Information

Facts are verifiable and socially agreed-upon truths.3

Accurately communicating research information in ways

that meet learner needs—without changing the fundamental nature of the information—is the crux of the

knowledge-transfer challenge.

It is often difficult for practitioners to distinguish

legitimate science from value-laden pseudo-science;

however, to maintain legitimacy and trust, knowledgetransfer professionals must scrutinize the education

materials for credibility. Materials that are formally and

rigorously reviewed by peers, referees, and panels of

scientists can generally be recommended. Scanning the

literature is another technique; it provides a better grasp

of the contextual framework for the issue (Adams and

Hairston 1994).

Credible research-based knowledge-transfer programs are not prescriptive. Rather, they offer audiences,

3

 Smith, C.; Gilden, J. 2000. Values: the lens through which we view

reality. 12 p. Unpublished. On file with: Courtland Smith, Oregon

State University, Corvallis, OR 97331.
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

first, a continuum of alternatives with their consequences; and second, the diagnostic tools to distinguish

the plus/minus values of the choices, and to make wise

decisions. They do not espouse one practice over

another. This key characteristic distinguishes education

from advocacy.

Garland (1997) states that participants should be

able to trust and act upon the information they receive

to:

• Learn about the available portfolio of options and

their consequences

• Identify relevant facts for each option

• Distinguish the differences among values, myths,

opinions, and facts

• Identify personal values involved

• Identify unknowns and variables

• Use data to analyze individual situations

• Define what success would look like for them

Rigorous Evaluation

Evaluation helps answer the questions:

• Are my knowledge-transfer efforts actually making a

difference?

• What would have made my program more effective?

• How can I refine my future knowledge-transfer

activities to achieve better results?

• To what extent is my audience using the

information?

Evaluation has various definitions. We use the term

to describe the systematic collection, analysis, and

reporting of information that can be used to improve a

project or program. It also can be described as a continuous process of inquiry—a process of asking questions

about social, economic, and environmental conditions

and circumstances within which knowledge transfer

occurs.

A quick Web search identifies dozens of evaluation

methods for evaluating knowledge-transfer program

effectiveness. Two standard tools for planning and

assessing impacts are logic models (W.K. Kellogg 2000)

and variations of Bennett’s Hierarchy (Bennett 1975).

A logic model visually displays the sequence of

actions that describe what the program is and what it will

accomplish (Norland 2003). It shows the connections

between available resources, activities carried out with

program audiences, units of service delivered, and

intended results, as well as the long-term goal to which

the program contributes.

Bennett’s Hierarchy describes a series of staircase

levels of evidence of program impacts. A newer version

called Targeting Outcomes of Programs includes a

hierarchy of targeting outcomes, tracking progress

toward achieving targets, and evaluating the degree to

which programs impact targeted social, economic, and

environmental conditions.4

Fair-Open-Honest Teaching Philosophy

The fair-open-honest public process philosophy adapts

well to knowledge-transfer situations. Incorporating its

criteria in formal and informal interactions strengthens

programming as well as connections with clientele (Faast

and Simon-Brown 1996).

Fair

Fair means providing opportunities for people to participate in ways that work well for them. Providing everyone

with the same information at the same time, and making

sure the people affected by a decision help to make that

decision are elements of fairness.

Open

The essence of open is the question: Are you really

listening? An open knowledge-transfer process ensures

that programming is designed to accommodate and use

4

 Bennett, C.; Rockwell, K. 1995. Targeting outcomes of programs

(TOP): an integrated approach to planning and evaluation.

Unpublished manuscript. On file with: University of Nebraska,

Lincoln, NE 68508. http://citnews.unl.edu/TOP/english/

overviewf.html. (July 2005).
29

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

information from a variety of sources; that participants

understand their roles; and the process is straightforward,

understandable, and clearly explained.

Honest

Honest means not withholding information or assuming

the information is too complex for the audience to

understand. It also means acknowledging that some

issues are simply so value-laden that group effort cannot

fix them. And it means being realistic about what can be

delivered, whether it’s a report, a policy, or an outcome.

Conclusion

There are almost as many theories about educational

best practices as there are practitioners in the field.

Clearly, this paper does not address the full range of

available options. However it is useful to look at what

well-respected practitioners choose to use in their

knowledge-transfer programming. The three fundamental attributes—learner-centric, credible researchbased information, and rigorous evaluation—espoused

by all the practitioners discussed in this paper, contribute

greatly to the success of knowledge transfer.

Literature Cited

Adams, P.W.; Hairston, A. 1994. Using scientific input

in policy and decision making. EC 1441. Corvallis,

OR: Oregon State University Extension Service. 8 p.

Bennett, C. 1975. Up the hierarchy. Journal of Extension.

13(2): 7–12. http://www.joe.org/joe/1975march/

1975-2-a1.pdf. (July 2005).

deYoe, D.; Hollstedt, C. 2003. A knowledge exchange

system: putting innovation to work. Paper presented at the 6th IUFRO extension working party

symposium. Troutdale OR: IUFRO. 8 p. http://

www.iufro.org/science/divisions/division-6/.

(July 2005).

Faast, T.; Simon-Brown, V. 1996. Fair-open-honest

public process: a social ethic for fish and wildlife

science. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 4(3): 86–92.

Garland, J.J. 1997. The players in public policy. Journal

of Forestry. 95(1): 13–15.

Johnson, J. 2003. Best practices in forestry extension–

a state perspective. Paper presented at the 6th IURO

extension working party symposium. Troutdale, OR:

IUFRO. 9 p. http://www.iufro.org/science/divisions/

division-6/. (July 2005).

Norland, E. 2003. Best practices in extension forestry:

what we know and what we do. Paper presented at

the 6th IUFRO. extension working party symposium.

Troutdale, OR: IUFRO. 9 p. http://www.iufro.org/

science/divisions/division-6/. (July 2005).

Reed, A.S. 1999. Key factors in the success of extension

forestry programs. Paper presented at the 4th IUFRO

extension working party symposium. Bled, Slovenia:

Bled: IUFRO. 6 p. http://www.iufro.org/science/

divisions/division-6/. (July 2005).

Simon-Brown, V. 1999. Effective meetings management.

Working together series. EC 1508. Corvallis, OR:

Oregon State University Extension Service. 12 p.

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. 2000. Logic model

development guide: using logic models to bring

together planning, evaluation, and action. Kellogg

Foundation. http://www.wkkf.org/Pubs/Tools/

Evaluation/Pub3669.pdf. (July 2005).
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726
31

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

In Search of the Science Integration Keystone

Charisse Sydoriak1

Abstract

The federal government has had a long-standing interest

in effective technology transfer (e.g., President’s Science

Advisory Committee 1963; U.S. Public Laws 96-408, 99-

502; Presidential Executive Order 12591). Federal land

management agencies and their partners have embraced

this responsibility. Why then, in spite of 40-plus years of

effort are we still pondering how to improve technology

transfer?

Through a brief exploration of historical technology

transfer efforts, human motivation theory, recent media

opinions, and informal discourse with others in the

federal and academic arenas, I’ve learned that technology transfer is far more complicated than it used to be

when success was simply measured by publishing new

information. To measure successful technology transfer

in modern terms means providing for the integration of

new scientific findings and technology-based tools in

a measurably relevant socioeconomic context. This

paradigm has been described as bridging or boundary

spanning (Sanchez 2000) because it is multidimensional,

requires new infrastructure, navigation models and mechanisms, and progress requires special communication

skills between communities of people that are separated

by a gulf of differences in perceptions, values, and

language.

In this paper, I discuss three critical operating challenges of the modern technology transfer paradigm that

need more attention, compile and interpret problemsolving concepts, and propose a science integration

1

Chief, Division of Science Integration; USDI Bureau of Land

Management, National Science and Technology Center, Building

50, POB 25047, Denver, CO 80225; Tel: 303-236-0582; e-mail:

charisse_sydoriak@blm.gov.

bridge-building framework dependent on eight capacitybuilding blocks. I also propose that the science integration keystone is “executive leadership” as defined by

the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM 2005),

because coordinated capacity building depends on committed leaders who possess the courage, vision, business

acumen, and human resource management reengineering skills necessary to construct and institutionalize

a modern technology transfer, or more accurately, a

science integration paradigm.

Keywords: Science integration, technology transfer,

capacity building, human motivation theory, boundary

spanner.

Background and Challenges

Science and technology have vastly improved the

quality of our lives as individuals and as a society.

Nevertheless, knowledge comes at a cost, so the investment value of science and technology is constantly

questioned. Public and government interest in the use of

scientific findings in federally controlled decisions is

essential and discretionary depending on the sociopolitical context (U.S. Public Law 106-554) and the

degree of scientific certainty that may be claimed. The

USDI 2003 Strategic Plan recognizes that “[p]olitical

leaders, policymakers, and the public have never had a

greater need for accurate and timely science-based

information than today.”

In recognition of the need for improved sciencebased information access, delivery, and communications,

the Bureau of Land Management realigned its National

Science and Technology Center to focus on capacity

building. In April 2004, as chief of a new “Science
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Integration” division, I scanned the technology transfer2

and related social science “adoption of innovations”

literature, monitored opinions in the national media,

attended formal meetings and workshops, participated

in ad hoc discussion forums, and solicited personal

perspectives pertinent to the need to improve science

integration. I asked questions such as: Why do some

science and technology integration efforts work? Is it

the nature of the science delivered, or does it have something to do with a special relationship that the science

consumer has with the science provider, or is it both and

more? My purpose here is to share pertinent discoveries

resulting from this brief, nonscientific scoping effort.

What Has Worked?

Making scientific information and products available

and useful is extremely challenging and time consuming under almost any condition. Scientific information

comes in many languages, scales, and formats, which

makes it difficult to synthesize. In spite of this, some

organizations have enabled the adoption of science

by targeted science consumers. The USDA Extension

Program was often mentioned in discussions and presentations as having been successful with rural clients.

Another effort that has clear sustained utility is the widespread use of Rothermel’s (1983) Fire Spread Equation

for a growing series of fire behavior and spread prediction tools and applications.

What Has Not Worked?

In 1973, Forest Service fire managers developed a

“seven-step process” designed to synthesize and disseminate 20 years of accumulated research results that had

2

Note: The terms modern technology transfer and science delivery,

applications, and integration are used interchangeably in this paper to

mean a joint problemsolving process that links science providers,

tool builders, investigators, decisionmakers (land managers and their

staff), and science user communities together to prioritize, produce,

deliver, and sustain relevant science and technology applications.

Persons who facilitate the linking process are called science

integrators or boundary spanners (Sanchez 2000).

been reported in over 150 technical publications. The

1973 Forest Service technology transfer plan specified

a target audience, creation of illustrated booklets, and

active marketing. In a Forest Service report (Marx and

Moeller 1984), the project was deemed successful

because “the technology was transferred to the target

audiences and evidence showed that it was being used.”

(Note that this “evidence” was not disclosed in the

report.)

Based on the 1973 Forest Service report, it would

appear that the 1973 Forest Service information synthesis and technology transfer effort took significant leadership support and employee effort. That commitment

does not appear to have been sustained, however,

because in 1994, Forest Service fire directors again

posed the question of how to integrate research results

into fire management activities and an “eight-step

process” was developed (USDA 1994). A team of Forest

Service staff investigated how well the 1994 eight-step

process worked and reported that although some issues/

problems were transformed into products, the followthrough and commitment to transforming the relevant

problems into a research framework was insufficient

because of a change in leadership interest.3

Why Is There a Problem?

In my search to understand the science integration challenge, I found three basic operating principles that contribute to the problem: (1) insufficient capacity to

assimilate an exponentially growing body of data, information, tools, and knowledge; (2) our lack of capability

to deliver knowledge in a format that ensures maximum

access and utility; and (3) a general lack of ability to

communicate effectively because of multiple obstacles.

The most challenging of the three operating principles

appears to be the inability to effectively communicate.

3

Cook, W. 2004. Personal communication. Technology Transfer

Specialist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Lab, 5775 US West

Highway 10, Missoula, MT 59808.
33

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

This is probably because catalyzing change in human

values, conditioning, and behaviors to enable improved

communications is far more elusive than mechanistically

resolving an assimilation problem (Snowden 2002).

The Forest Service 1973 seven-step and 1994 eightstep technology transfer processes mentioned previously

are examples of how ad hoc efforts to improve on technology transfer effectiveness is insufficient. Why is this?

In my search for an answer, I discovered that generally

the relationship void between science providers and

science consumers might be the result of years of reinforcing bad behaviors and low expectations. Therefore, I

believe that we need to invest in answering the following

behavior-driven issues to truly understand the science

integration problem:

• Why is it difficult for decisionmakers to transform

resource management issues into a publicly

accepted science framework? What is needed to

simplify and speed up the task?

• Is it possible to determine the research questions

that will contribute effectively to management’s

problemsolving process. If so, how?

• Why do so many scientists resist directed research

and the extra effort to transform the results into

management applications? Can this resistance be

overcome and if so, how?

• What is necessary to enable sustained performance

when these issues are addressed?

Science providers and federal land managers usually

operate in physically and intellectually separated communities that reinforce certain behaviors. To change

behaviors in these communities, we need to understand

their inherent or predominant perspectives.

The Perspective Challenge

Others have suggested that we need to make a fundamental shift in how natural resource scientists perceive their

role in management (Herman 2002), are perceived by

managers (Limerick and Puska 2003), and participate in

the decision/policymaking process (Clark et al. 1998).

A scientist perspective: Many scientists have historically viewed themselves as having fulfilled their

technology transfer responsibility when their findings

are published. They view the process transfer trajectory

as one-way (e.g, passive rather than interactive) with a

clear end point. Evidence of this perspective can be

found in a 1984 Forestry Commission Bulletin article

by Marx and Moeller (1984) describing the technology

transfer planning process as “beginning when a scientist

or his superior informs top management that there

are research results ready for transfer to users.” This

perception of the technology transfer process has apparently dominated the federal lands management

science delivery system for at least 40 years (President’s

Science Advisory Committee 1963). The presumption is

that the only legitimate facts are those that result from

independently derived scientific investigations and

analyses.

In the federal land management context, many scientists perceive themselves in unwelcome territory for a

variety of reasons, many of which are valid (Sellars

1997). Thomas Kuhn, an internationally known historian

of science, philosopher, and author of The Structure of

Scientific Revolutions (1962), described the nature of

scientific change and the challenges that scientists face

as follows: “In science, novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background

provided by expectations.” These perspectives are

evidence of long-standing and deep-seated frustrations

in the science provider community. They also reveal

some work components that science providers value and

suggest opportunities for improvements.

In general, the scientist is rewarded (and therefore

conditioned to respond) when their findings are found

to be credible (statistically certain) through the labor

and time-intensive data collection, analysis, interpretation, retesting, and peer-reviewed publication process.

Sometimes the insistence on certainty can have adverse

consequences. Albert Einstein, for example, tried to

prove that the universe evolved in a finite, predictable

manner. Decades of experimentation have confirmed
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

otherwise. Reality actually consists of a haze of possibilities. Einstein’s rejection of uncertainty resulted in

his losing touch with mainstream physics for most of his

career (Greene 2005). In the federal land management

context, the consequence of withholding scientific information until there is greater certainty means that decisions are often made without an opportunity to consider

the current state of knowledge.

A resource manager or decisionmaker perspective: Decisionmakers usually must make their decisions

relatively quickly in spite of uncertainty and poorly

defined and/or complex goals and objectives. Managers

often take calculated risks because of public or organizational pressure and a system that demands and rewards

short-term successes rather than long-term, potentially

better outcomes. Federal land managers facing intense

pressure to act, and negative consequence if they don’t,

sometimes choose to ignore or even suppress sciencebased information in their perception of an imperative to

act. For example, the Forest Service reaction to disastrous

wildfires that took place in 1910 was to implement an

aggressive fire suppression policy in spite of scientific

evidence and debate over the use of fire as a critical resource management tool (Pyne et al. 1996). The longterm ecological and socioeconomic consequences of

ignoring that scientific information have been very

costly as is evident in present day increases in unprecedented wildfire behavior in many fire-adapted ecosystems.

Unfortunately, it often takes a crisis, like the

1910 fires, to catalyze a change in the decisionmakers’

perspectives. This is as true today as it was at the turn

of the 20th century. One federal resource manager/

decisionmaker I interviewed (who wishes to remain

anonymous) believes that the Healthy Forest Act and

supporting directives (HFA/HFRI) have set in motion

a potential crisis when public expectations of a safe

wildland-urban interface (WUI) and reality collide. He

believes that “too many decisions in the forest health

world are being driven by ecologists.” He has a degree in

the environmental sciences so I was surprised by his

negative reaction to an ecologically driven decision

framework. I asked him to explain this paradox. He said

that the public land management mission directs us to

focus on multiple public values. For example, the HFA/

HFRI directs federal land managers “to restore forest

ecosystem health and to protect public values.” Forest

ecosystem health is now measured by an ecology-based

metric called the “condition class.” Decisionmaker

performance, therefore, is measured by how many acres

are successfully converted from one condition class to

another. The public, however, does not relate well to this

metric or its value. What the public expects is that many

more homes in the rapidly growing WUI will be protected. If federal land manager performance is rewarded

principally on the basis of acres converted (regardless

of location), why take the personal risk or absorb the

higher costs associated with treating the most difficult

but socioeconomically valued acres where homes are

located? This resource manager/decisionmaker views

the science community as driving the ecologic values

approach (which focuses on landscapes) because “it fits

their program agenda, not the larger social priorities

agenda which is protection of homes.” He believes that

a paradigm shift would reframe the performance metrics

to reward the decisionmaker for taking risks to treat the

most difficult, high-priority WUI areas (and thereby

satisfy certain socioeconomic priorities), and also reward

those scientists who enabled the manager to take calculated risks in these areas successfully.

This discussion about differing perspectives is not

meant to imply that scientists can’t produce when there

is uncertainty nor that decisionmakers are inherently

impulsive. Perspectives are personal, complex, and they

evolve. For example, an emerging, socially cognizant

perspective is evident in a letter by Bazzaz et al. (1998),

which states that

“good science used to involve doing first-rate

research and publishing it in the scientific

literature. Now, however, [a group of eminent

ecologists] note a third necessary activity:
35

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

informing the general public (and especially

taxpayers) of the relevance and importance of

our work. We are convinced that this applies to

even the most esoteric of ‘basic’ research,

because understanding how the world works is

fundamental to both satisfying natural human

curiosity and solving the human predicament.”

This statement from an academic scientist suggests

that an evolution toward revised, perhaps converging

perspectives is taking place.

Operating Challenges

Why, in spite of explosive growth of science-based

knowledge, is there a perception that land management

and resource allocation decisions are increasingly made

by federal judges and not by professionally trained and

experienced resource managers? The answer is, at least

in part, that litigants often demonstrate they have a better

mastery of relevant scientific knowledge than federal resource staff specialists and decisionmakers. Why haven’t

federal specialists and decisionmakers mastered the most

current and relevant scientific knowledge? According to

Sherwood L. Boehlert, Chairman of the House Science

Committee, “What we need is for some agency or some

organization...to synthesize all the various information

that’s available to us. We don’t lack information; we just

lack consolidation of information.” Whether we agree or

not with the entirety of his position (that we don’t need

more information), I think we can agree that federal

land management agencies do not currently reap the

full benefit of our national investments in science and

technology because of lack of coordinated direction,

synthesis, and dissemination of temporally and spatially

relevant natural resource management data, information,

and knowledge. A cursory look at this subject revealed

that the operating challenges to science integration

appear to be:

Our Capacity to Assimilate

Knowledge is increasing faster than it can be assimilated

(Empson 2001; Lubchenco 1998; Naisbitt 1982, Naisbitt

and Aburdeen 1990; RUC 2000, 2003). Many new findings, models, and tools are produced annually by research efforts, but the vast majority of these products are

not being coordinated, synthesized, and adopted by end

users (Ford 2000, MacKendrick 2001, Marx and Moeller

1984, Pringle and Collins 2004). In addition, free access

to all relevant information is limited by laws and regulations (Bodard 2003).

Our Capability to Effectively Deliver

Mechanisms to ensure efficient and effective delivery

and application of evolving science information and

technology are grossly inadequate (MacKendrick 2001,

Marx and Moeller 1984, Pringle and Collins 2004),

localized, or merely embryonic. Individuals working to

correct infrastructural capacity issues are scattered and

not engaged strategically (NRC 1993). Efforts to be

responsive to and effectively benefit from the explosion

of published and unpublished knowledge, predictive

models, and decision-support tools are not coordinated

between individual scientists, technology specialists,

end users, programs, and agencies (NRC 1993, USGS and

ESA 1998). Insufficient business attention and research

dollars have been given to building the concomitant

infrastructure, human, and organizational capabilities to

fully realize the benefits of the Nation’s past and ongoing research investments (NRC 1993).

Our Ability to Appropriately Communicate

Understanding and response to needs is not sufficiently

accomplished because of language, process, perception,

and value differences between science and technology

providers and potential end users (e.g., decisionmakers,

policymakers, staff specialists, practitioners, and the

public). A consistent and effective approach to science
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

and technology integration in a modern context is

needed (AAAS 2005, Bensaude-Vincent 2001, Evans

2005, Ford 2000, Lubchenco 1998, MacKendrick 2001,

NAPA 2002, NRC 1993, Rothman and Robinson 1997,

USDA FS 2004a, USGS and ESA 1998). Finding relevant

Web-based information and tools takes an extraordinary

amount of patience, skill, and time. Additionally, the

capacity to facilitate complex, interdisciplinary problemsolving across multiple spatial and temporal scales in a

socially responsive manner is insufficient (Benda et al.

2002, Clark and Fujimura 1992, Herrick 2000,

Lubchenco 1998, NRC 1993, USGS and ESA 1998).

These capacity, capability, and ability deficits lead

to ineffective application of science information, duplication of efforts, and ultimately (in some instances)

to poor decisions (NRC 1993) and loss of public confidence. The result is that managers and policymakers

rarely have the “best” possible information and tools to

evaluate their options and to predict or communicate the

effects of their actions (Clark and Fujimura 1992, Feick

2003, Ford 2000, Hines 2001, Lubchenco 1998, NAS

1986, NRC 1993). In spite of at least four decades of

effort, the science integration gap appears to be widening

in key scientific arenas, particularly those relevant to

public lands stewardship.

Proposed Solution

Useful published and unpublished information exists

on the uneasy relationship between scientists and operational decisionmakers (potential science consumers).

There is also a body of knowledge on how to motivate

humans to change within an organizational context. I

have selectively mined this knowledge to propose a

metaphorical bridge-building solution to the science

integration challenge. My hypothesis is that the way to

engineer this bridge is to build multifaceted capacity

through eight building blocks strategically constructed,

balanced, and connected by the keystone of executive

leadership.

Block 1. Understand Contextual Success and

Create a Learning Clearinghouse

The federal government and suborganizations, such as

the U.S. Department of the Interior, develop and implement business processes that are responsive to the mission and culture of their organizations. People in these

organizations are influenced and make choices based

on individual and organizational values. A thorough examination of what has worked and what has not worked

given current and historical organizational values and

technology to facilitate science integration in each

federal land management culture/agency should be

conducted. The lessons learned should be synthesized

and delivered to a centralized clearinghouse so that

information and ideas on what works and what doesn’t,

given an array of cultures and conditions, can be easily

accessed by interested entities, particularly leaders of

these agencies and their staff responsible for development or use of science-derived products and services.

Block 2. Recognize and Respond to Human

Connection Opportunities

To design and reengineer a science integration bridge,

we need to recognize and respond to at least three areas

of opportunity to span gaps in human connections: those

between scientists, between scientists and decisionmakers who are science consumers, and within federal

organizations.

Connections within science communities—

According to some social science researchers, collaboration between scientists working in different disciplines is

lacking. This collaboration is important because the

human/natural environment nexus is very complicated,

involving multiple lexicons, and temporal and spatial

scales. Benda et al. (2002) identified four obstacles to

scientists collaborating:

• Lack of a common language between disciplines.

• Existing scientific knowledge may reflect outdated

contexts that are ill suited to current environmental

problems and questions.
37

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

• Mismatches in time and space, in forms of knowledge, and in levels of precision and accuracy.

• Scientists are influenced by worldviews and nonscientific values that favor certain assumptions.

Although there are undoubtedly additional collaboration obstacles facing scientists, we should consider

addressing at least these four now that they have been

systematically identified by a group of social scientists.

Connections between science providers and

decisionmakers—

Weber and Word in a 2001 article asked “is it possible...

for scientific information to make sense in similar ways

for nonscientists and for scientists?” The authors came to

three conclusions:

• Scientists and nonscientists would benefit by seeing

science communication as a process as well as a

product.

• Frame of reference matters because information is

understood through both general and local contexts.

• Scientists must accept that objectivity is not

neutrality. Once an apparently objective body of

information is placed in a public context, it will

inevitably be evaluated and used to evaluate other

information.

Again, by acknowledging that these findings (and

many others in the literature) may have merit, and

brainstorming and testing solutions, we can frame and

implement several remedies.

Connections in a modern organizational context—

It is critical to understand the individual science provider’s and decisionmaker’s needs in an organizational

context. Every worker has four personal and social needs:

mastery, contribution, self-respect, and acceptance. These

needs generally push people forward but, because the

future is always unknown, they may also hold people

back because of fear of failure, insignificance, being

judged, and rejection (Hultman and Gellermann 2002).

By hiring federal social scientists to study and test these

findings and organizational management theories (e.g.,

Burke 1982) on the federal land management and science

provider communities, we stand an improved chance of

making organizationally sustainable connections.

Block 3. Cultivate Behaviors That Enable Science

Integration

Biologist Michael Soule once said: “An instant of

honesty and compassion is more important than an hour

of logical argumentation.” People often argue when they

misunderstand or disagree with another’s values. Disagreeing is part of the scientific process, but it is often

viewed as alienating because the perpetrator is “not

being a team player” in the management arena. According to Hultman and Gellermann (2002), once embraced,

values become our standards of importance. The outcome of valuing—that is applying standards of importance—is that decisions are made. Value often means “a

good deal, well worth the money.” Psychologically,

values are conceptions about what is important in life.

They also serve as criteria for making decisions and

setting priorities, and are behind the explanations and

justifications we give for our actions.

Recent research reveals that values such as “economics, personal/subjective factors, and politics” have the

greatest influence on land use decisions (Feick 2003).

Scientific or technical information was third in terms of

considerations. Individuals and organizations are driven

by a range of influences. Therefore, in the modern world

we must consciously strive to align individual, societal,

environmental, and organizational values that enable

the integration of science and technology. Successful

realignment of values at this scale absolutely depends

on strong leadership commitment to understanding

the values and needs of resource management staffs,

decisionmakers, and science providers. Developing this

understanding will require investment in more social

scientists charged with studying the behaviors and

drivers of federal lands management decisionmakers and

their science providers. Some preliminary thoughts on
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

the basic actions that we need to take to cultivate desired

behaviors follow.

Understand resource manager and decisionmaker

behaviors—

Resource managers and decisionmakers regularly engage in risk management. The challenge for federal land

resource managers is to optimize the management of

multiple resources, while minimizing negative impacts

on conflicting environmental, socioeconomic, organizational, and personal values. Therefore, science providers

who routinely adapt their communications style and research to address socially relevant and risky management

issues are far more likely to create products and services

that will be used by resource managers and decisionmakers. Perhaps we need to challenge academia to include more relationship-building and risk-assessment

communications training in their science and technology

core curricula.

Understand science provider behaviors—

Science and technology providers are motivated by fears

and desires just like any other person. They share values

and expectations that shape their sense of personal and

social competency and integrity (Ford 2000). Imagine

going to work every day presuming that, “Any action

that environmental scientists take in the project called

‘restoration’ is almost sure to get them applauded, condemned, questioned, congratulated, and criticized for

going too far and for not going far enough” (Limerick

and Puska 2003). Why should the “environmental

scientist” bother to go to work if they believe that they

can’t be effective? Science and technology providers face

challenges that are often unrecognized by the land use

decisionmakers. For example, a scientist’s professional

credibility (and sense of personal worth) could be challenged when their findings are applied outside of their

original research context, but the decisionmaker chooses

to violate the context stipulation because it’s the “best

available science” they have. The science provider can’t

prevent this from happening (Ford 2000).

Another powerful driver of science provider behavior

is compensation. Federally employed scientists are financially rewarded more for their contributions to “advancing science” within their field of expertise than for

enabling science integration (Wright 2006). Naturally,

the federal decisionmaker often interprets a scientist’s

primary focus on doing what is necessary to publish as

“self-serving.” The federal decisionmaker has limited

time to wait for the publication so their interest in

communicating with federal scientists wanes.

Helping the scientist to understand the federal

decisionmaker’s need for getting any information, even

incomplete information, could alter the relationship and

behavior of science provider communities. Helping the

federal decisionmaker appreciate that compromises made

by the science provider potentially compromise their

professional standing and earning power could alter

decisionmakers choices for applications of incomplete

scientific findings.

Take action to cultivate desired behaviors and outcomes—

Warner Burke (1982) identified five values for a growthoriented organization to cultivate: human development,

fairness, openness, choice, and balance of autonomy and

constraint. Respect and recognition should be added to

this list in my opinion. There are ample opportunities

for individuals and organizations to engage in practical

activities that will cultivate a change in science provider

and science consumer (e.g., decisionmaker) behaviors.

For example, the federal government can support more

relationship-building forums, such as hiring more placebased scientists and hosting more scientist and decisionmaker driven, question-and-answer workshops.

Block 4. Invest in the Right People; Recognize

the Science Integrator Role

A majority of potential science consumers in federal land

management agencies do not have the time or expertise

required to filter mountains of specialized, sometimes

contradictory scientific knowledge and rapidly evolving
39

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

technology. Many potential science users are so

swamped by competing interests that they may not

even realize they need information or how to use it

once they get it. It is not reasonable to mandate that

decisionmakers abandon their driving need to be responsive in a timely manner to their stakeholders. It is

equally unreasonable to expect scientists to reshape the

scientific process to suit decisionmaker needs, values,

and behaviors at the expense of the scientists’ professional integrity. Special skills, therefore, are needed to

span the science integration bridge. Science integrators

(also known as boundary spanners) must respect the

values and cultures of the resource management staff

specialist, the decisionmaker, and the science provider.

Boundary spanners are needed to facilitate transformation of the technical into the pragmatic. These special

people must have a passion for service, excellent relationship-building skills, and be entrepreneurial and

patient. It is time for higher education institutions and

federal leaders to invest in developing and maintaining a

cadre of professional science integrators to “corporately”

bridge the science integration gap.

Block 5. Recalibrate Performance Expectations

To be successful, science integration must be viewed as

an essential and shared responsibility. Potential science

consumers must try to understand the implications and

ramifications of the scientific information available to

them.

The federal research-grade evaluation system does

not work well for the federal land management agencies;

it should be altered to equally reward federal scientists

who enable successful science outreach, education, technical assistance, and applications.

All federal land management science providers need

to understand that although drafting publications and

posting information on Web sites (often the principal

action proposed in the Internet age) has value, those

activities do not meet the needs of the intended science

consumers. Modern technology transfer cannot be accomplished by periodic one-way deposits of information

in books, journals, conference posters, and papers. It is

essential that scientists gain the capacity to collaborate

effectively with practitioners and decisionmakers to help

them identify and frame the right science questions,

recognize environmental constraints and opportunities,

and understand potential consequences when certain

choices are made.

We also need to recalibrate our expectations of staff

specialists who plan for and manage human, natural,

and cultural resources and advise decisionmakers.

Federal land and resource management specialists are

overextended. They are expected to be expert advisors

in multiple technical disciplines; uphold federal mandates, regulations, and policies; personally oversee data

collection; synthesize and report relevant information by

using advanced technologies; and practice “collaborative conservation.” They often do not have the time to

seek out and synthesize existing and emerging science

and technology. Resource specialists and decisionmakers would greatly benefit from accurate, readily

accessible, timely, and relevant science-based information and tools.

Block 6. Adopt Relevant Operating Frameworks

and Processes

At present, there is no consistent leadership or coordinated approach within, or between, agencies to support

long-term scientific research on federal lands. Pringle

and Collins (2004) made the case for a “unified infrastructure” or “network of networks” on a continental

scale that is capable of making connections between

different types of federal land ecosystems, management

issues, and question-driven ecological research. Unfortunately, the tasks required to construct a “unified infrastructure” capable of making these connections were not

provided in the publication. Nevertheless, we need to

design and implement a sensible connection strategy

to optimize and define inter- and intraagency working
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

relationships between science providers and federal land

management science consumers. Implementing a suitable operating framework and processes will not be easy

even if a strategic framework were available. There are

vested interests within each agency for whom change

will be viewed as threatening or prohibitively expensive.

Committed leadership, therefore, is key to breaking

down resistance and enabling change.

This science integration operating framework and

processes should be designed to motivate appropriate

and timely science provider and consumer interactions.

There are times when scientific independence is crucial

(e.g., during analysis and interpretation of research results) and other times where collaboration is essential

(e.g., to inform the public and translate issues into research questions). The strategy must accommodate the

need for basic research to identify management issues,

selection of the “best available science” support of the

planning and National Environmental Policy Act (U.S.

Public Law 91-190) process, and performance accountability between organizations. A strategic adaptivemanagement model, such as shown in figures 1 and 2,

illustrates how science and technology could be integrated into the land and resource management process

while simultaneously preserving scientific integrity. This

multidimensional model suggests a credible information

processing and decision path to sort through a body of

issue-specific knowledge to make science-based, defensible resource management decisions. This model also

enables certain science consumers to let science providers know what data are missing so that targeted end users

get what they ask for.

Shared strategic frameworks and processes could

significantly improve potential federal science consumers’ ability to assimilate relevant science and technology,

and science providers’ ability to deliver useful tools and

information. It would establish a common language, reduce wasted efforts and associated costs, enable accountability within and between organizations, and facilitate

adaptive management relevant to federal lands issues.

Block 7. Develop and Maintain Coordinated

Information Synthesis and Decision-Support

Tools

There are tremendous opportunities to access knowledge,

but the intended science consumer is generally not able

to access useful information because of time constraints

or lack of expertise to make sense of an avalanche of data

and information. Fortunately, information synthesis tools

are emerging such as NatureServe, Google Scholar, and

the National Biological Information Infrastructure. However, it’s not clear whether these types of tools are

meeting the needs of decisionmakers because few federal

land managers have the time to access and learn to use

the tools. My sense is that we need better coordination of

our growing national investment in science-based information synthesis and decision-support tools. Perhaps

institutionalization of an interagency science-based

information clearinghouse or consortium for land managers at multiple organizational levels could effectively

focus resources on high-priority management issues and

long-term change concerns. In the absence of such a

body, we will continue to develop ad hoc and competing

solutions to the information synthesis challenge and

engage in stressful and costly unresolved science

debates.

Block 8. Organizational and Individual

Commitment

Organizations can thrive when shared values are clearly

established and modeled by their leaders (Burke 1982,

Hultman and Gellermann 2002). There is a great deal of

effort given to science integration, but there appears to

be no consistent leadership within, or between, federal

land management agencies to measure and report on

what works and to demonstrate sustainable commitment

for science integration.

I found many ideas about how to engender “common

will” for organizational and individual capacity and capability building in science integration. Foremost on the
41

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Figure 1—A science-based adaptive management model.

Figure 2—The relationship between decisionmaking, implementation, and available resources. The decisionmaking

process takes place over time, and the need for support resources relates to the process. In the diagram, it can be seen

that additional support resources may be needed as early as step 2 and peaks at the assessment and analysis step.

The greatest involvement occurs if additional research is required. At this point, the federal land manager should not

be involved. As the process proceeds, the staff resource manager and then the decisionmaker becomes reengaged

until at step 7, the decision is made by the manager.
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

list is the need for leaders throughout the organization

who demonstrate their commitment to the desired

outcomes. Other organizational operating principles

include:

• Adopt a business framework that plausibly compels

successful science integration.

• Cultivate and reward “growth-oriented” team

approaches.

• Seek out and leverage common values.

• Engage in bidirectional, iterative dialog.

• Invest sufficient time and energy to understand and

frame needs in the “right language.”

• Create and deliver timely, relevant, and easy-to-use

information.

• Be flexible and adaptable—it is no longer

acceptable to say “we can’t do ‘X’ that way because

we’ve always done ’X’ this way.”

These organizational operating principles foster

creativity, synergy, and a productive working environment committed to an organization’s mission.

Keystone to Success

The science integration bridge cannot be simply constructed because, as I’ve shown in this brief exploration

of technology transfer efforts and human motivation

theory, there are many “competing forces” and structural

elements required. In the absence of a strategically

placed and appropriately crafted keystone, a bridge will

inevitably collapse. The purpose of the bridge keystone

is to distribute competing forces so that no one structurally important block is destabilized resulting in bridge

failure. The keystone metaphor seems to me to be an

apt description of the purpose or role and function of

our federal executive leaders. The OPM identified 27

performance “competencies” for the federal executive

leader, such as courage, vision, business acumen, technical know-how, and human resource management skills.

All of these skills or competencies are required to build a

sustainable science integration bridge.

Conclusion

The federal government has had a long-standing interest

in effective technology transfer. Federal land management agencies and their partners have embraced this

responsibility, but in spite of decades of effort, we don’t

have very many examples of successful science integration programs. The federal government needs to systematically examine what has worked well, define what the

outcomes of the technology transfer process should be,

and invest in an improved, much more viable technology

transfer (e.g., science integration) “bridge.”

Using values-based problemsolving concepts identified in the social sciences literature, several published

articles, and stories and observations from federal land

management science providers, resource management

specialists, and decisionmakers, I have discovered many

opportunities for constructing a viable science integration bridge. These opportunities were briefly explored

and connected by eight conceptual building blocks.

Each building block requires improved understanding

at multiple scales, a commitment of new resources or

reconfiguration of existing resources, and changes in

models, perspectives, and culture. None of these things

can be accomplished in the absence of committed and

consistent executive sponsorship. I conclude, therefore,

that executive leadership is the keystone to enabling and

sustaining effective science integration—at least in the

federal land management arena.

Literature Cited

American Association for the Advancement of Science

[AAAS]. 2005. AAAS S&T leadership seminar offers

real-world view of policy-making. www.aaas.org/

news/releases/2005/0103st.shtml. (May 5, 2005).
43

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Bazzaz, F.; Ceballos, G.; Davis, M.; Dirzo, R.; Ehrlich,

P.R.; Eisner, T.; Levin, S.; Lawton, J.H.;

Lubchenco, J.; Matson, P.A.; Mooney, H.A.; Raven,

P.H.; Roughgarden, J.E.; Sarukhan, J.; Tilman, D.;

Vitousek, P.; Walker, B.; Wall, D.H.; Wilson, E.O.;

Woodwell, G.M. 1998. Ecological science and the

human predicament. Science. 282: 879.

Benda, L.E.; Poff, N.L.; Tague, C.; Palmer, M.A.;

Pizzuto, J.; Cooper, S.; Stanley, E.; Moglen, G.

2002. How to avoid train wrecks when using science

in environmental problem solving. BioScience.

52(12): 1127–1136.

Bensaude-Vincent, B. 2001. A genealogy of the

increasing gap between science and the public:

public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science. 10(1): 99–113.

Bodard, K. 2003. Free access to information challenged

by filtering techniques. Information & Communications Technology Law. 12(3): 263–279.

Burke, W.W. 1982. Organization development:

principles and practices. Boston, MA: Little, Brown

and Company. 402 p.

Clark, A.E.; Fujimura, J.H. 1992. What tools? Which

job? Why right? In: Clark, A.E.; Fujimura, J.H., eds.

The right tools for the job: at work in the twentiethcentury life sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press. 3: 43.

Clark, R.N.; Meidinger, E.E.; Miller, G.; Rayner, J.;

Layseca, M.; Monreal, S.; Fernandez, J.; Shannon,

M.A. 1998. Integrating science and policy in natural

resource management: lessons and opportunities

from North America. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-441.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 22 p.

Empson, L. 2001. Introduction: knowledge management

in professional service firms. Human Relations.

54(7): 811–817.

Evans, R. 2005. Introduction: demarcation socialized:

constructing boundaries and recognizing difference.

Science, Technology & Human Values. 30: 3–16.

Feick, J.L. 2003. Does “good” science lead to “better”

land use decisions? SAMPAA (Science and

Management of Protected Areas): making ecosystem

based management work. 5th international SAMPAA

conference. Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada:

SAMPAA, http://www.sampaa.org/search_a.htm.

(May 5, 2005).

Ford, E.D. 2000. Scientific methods for ecological

research. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge

University Press. 564 p.

Greene, B. 2005. One hundred years of uncertainty. New

York Times. April 8; Op-Ed. www.nytimes.com/2005/

04/08/opinion/

08greene.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th-49k.

(May 5).

Herman, S.G. 2002. Wildlife biology and natural

history: time for a reunion. Journal of Wildlife

Management. 66(4): 933–946.

Herrick C. 2000. Predictive modeling of acid rain:

obstacles to generating useful information. In:

Sarewitz, D.; Pielke, R.A., Jr.; Byerly, R., Jr., eds.

Prediction: science, decision making, and the future

of nature. Washington, DC: Island Press: 251–268.

Hines, P.J. 2001. The dynamics of scientific

controversies. AgBioForum. 4(3&4): 186–193.

Hultman, K.; Gellermann, B. 2002. Balancing

individual and organizational values; walking the

tightrope to success. New York: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

240 p.

Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ISBN

0-226-45808-3.
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Limerick, P.N.; Puska, C. 2003. Making the most of

science in the American West: an experiment. Report

No. 5. Denver, CO: University of Colorado, Boulder

Center for the American West. 33 p.

Lubchenco, J. 1998. Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science. 279:

491–497.

Office of Personnel Management [OPM]. 2005.

Qualification review board process, Executive Core

Qualifications (ECQ’s). http://www.opm.gov/ses/

ecq.asp. (May 9).

MacKendrick, N. 2001. Improving opportunities for

knowledge exchange and collaboration between

researchers and practitioners in fire science and

technology. Winnipeg, MB: CIFFC. Final report

submitted to the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire

Centre, Fire Science and Technology Working

Group, 210–301 Weston Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba

R3E 3H4. 45 p.

Marx, H.G.; Moeller, G.H. 1984. Planning for

transferring research knowledge in the U.S. Forest

Service. In: Moeller, G.H.; Seal, D.T., eds. Technology transfer in forestry: proceedings of a meeting of the international union of forestry research

organizations, subject group s608. Forestry Commission Bulletin 61. London: Great Britain Forestry

Commission: 7–9.

Naisbitt, J. 1982. Megatrends: ten new directions

transforming our lives. New York: Warner Books,

Inc. 290 p.

Naisbitt, J.; Aburdeen, P. 1990. Megatrends 2000: ten

new directions for the 1990’s. New York: William

Morrow. 384 p.

National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA].

2002. Wildfire suppression: strategies for containing

costs: a report by a panel of the National Academy of

Public Administration for the U.S. Congress and the

Departments of Agriculture and the Interior.

Washington, DC. 66 p.

The National Academy of Sciences [NAS]. 1986.

Ecological knowledge and environmental problemsolving: concepts and case studies. Washington, DC:

Committee on the Applications of Ecology Theory

to Environmental Problems, National Research

Council. 400 p.

National Research Council [NRC]. 1993. Research

to protect, restore, and manage the environment.

Washington, DC: Committee on Environmental

Research, Commission of Life Sciences, National

Academy Press. 242 p.

Presidential Executive Order 12591. 1987. Facilitating

access to science and technology. Federal Register.

52(77): 13414.

President’s Science Advisory Committee, Science,

Government, and Information. 1963. The responsibilities of the technical community and the government in the transfer of information. Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office. 52 p.

Pringle, C.M.; Collins, S. 2004. Needed: a unified

infrastructure to support long-term scientific research

on public lands. Ecological Applications. 14: 18–21.

Pyne, S.J.; Andrews, P.A.; Laven, R.D. 1996. Introduction to wildland fire. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley

and Sons, Inc. 769 p.

Regents of the University of California [RUC]. 2000.

“How much information?” http://

www.sims.berkeley.edu/how-much-info/.

Conclusions. (May 5).
45

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Regents of the University of California [RUC]. 2003.

“How much information?” http://

www.sims.berkeley.edu/how-much-info-2003/.

Summary of findings. (May 5).

Rothermel, R.C. 1983. How to predict the spread and

intensity of forest and range fires. Gen. Tech. Rep.

INT-143. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 161 p.

Rothman, D.S.; Robinson, J.B. 1997. Growing pains: a

conceptual framework for considering integrated

assessments. Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment. 46(1-2): 23–43.

Sanchez, V. 2000. Reflections on community coalition

staff: research directions from practice. Health

Promotion Practice. 1(4): 320–322.

Sellars, R.W. 1997. Preserving nature in the national

parks: a history. New Haven, London: Yale

University Press. 380 p.

Snowden, D. 2002. Complex acts of knowing: paradox

and descriptive self-awareness. Special Edition

Journal of Knowledge Management. 6(2): 100–111.

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

FS]. 1994. National fire directors—The eight-step

process: a briefing paper. Boise, ID: Fire Research

Work Group: Gordie Schmidt, Ken Blonski, Ken

Strauss, Troy Kurth, Harry Croft, Enoch Bell, and

Roy Johnson (BLM). 10 p.

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

FS]. 2004a. Enhancing science based performance:

a strategy and plan of action for improving science

and technology application in the U.S. Forest Service. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Washington, DC. 12 p.

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

FS]. 2004b. Forest Service Research and Development Program Delivery Logic Model. Synthesis of

stakeholder input. Report from Logic Model meeting

November 3, 2004. On file with: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research

Station. 7 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI]. 2003. U.S.

Department of the Interior strategic plan; fiscal year

2003-2008. Washington, DC. 82 p.

U.S. Geological Survey; Ecological Society of America

[USGS and ESA]. 1998. Summary report of the workshop on enhancing integrated science. Reston, VA

(28 October 2002: http://www.usgs.gov/

integrated_science/). (May 5, 2005).

U.S. Laws, Statues, etc.; Public Law 91-190. National

Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] of 1969. plus

amendments 88 Stat. 852 42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.

U.S. Laws, Statues, etc.; Public Law 96-480. StevensonWydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980. 96th

Congress, 2nd session, Oct. 21, 1980. 94 Stat. 2311.

U.S. Laws, Statues, etc.; Public Law 99-502. Federal

Technology Transfer Act of 1986. 99th Congress, 2nd

session, Oct. 20, 1986. 100 Stat.1785.

U.S. Laws, Statues, etc.; Public Law 106-554.

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001. 106th

Congress, 2nd session, Dec. 21, 2000. 114 Stat. 2763.

Weber, J.R.; Word, C.S. 2001. The communication

process as evaluative context: What do nonscientists

hear when scientists speak? BioScience. 51:

487–495.

Wright, V. 2006. Barriers to science-based management:

What are they and what can we do about them?

(Session Summary). In: Harmon, D. ed. 2006. People,

places, and parks: proceedings of the 2005 George

Wright Society conference on parks, protected areas,

and cultural sites. Hancock, MI: The George Wright

Society: 34–37.
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726
47

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Organizing Information for Natural Resource Management

Gordon E. Warrington1

Sci: Yes it will.

Mgr: How much higher?

Sci: We were able to measure with certainty, a fraction

of 1 percent change.

Mgr: So how is that going to help me meet the management goals?

Here is a conversation where an exchange of

thoughts and opinions was not taking place. These people are talking past each other. The manager is thinking

that significant means something is important and

influential, whereas the scientist is saying that a difference exists. These individuals, or groups as the case may

be, are both sincerely trying to improve the outcome of

forest management, even though they seem to have

different thoughts about the same topic.

Objective and value-free orthodox science presents fragmented perception of the world as it investigates small details of large systems. On the other hand,

management deals with a whole system; therefore, information for managers must bridge the fragments of knowledge produced through scientific pursuits.

This paper looks at how natural resource managers

develop and use information. I present a framework that

can be used to target and inject new findings into a

management environment. I end with a short discussion

about how the science community can address management concerns. My approach presents some human responses associated with technology transfer that affect

a land manager’s use of controllable management

elements.

Using concepts from philosophy is an exercise in

reason, where the ideas that come out on top have the

best reasons supporting them. Reason is the web of

inferential relationships among propositions. Reasoning

Abstract

Two cultures, management and science, have different

visions about resource management because of their

respective responsibilities. In each culture, people come

to terms with reality based on experiences within their

own language system and consider the respective

assumptions to be self-evident. Facilitating technology

transfer requires leaving behind some ideas about

science as the only source of truth and knowledge while

still recognizing that scientists and managers have their

respective world visions. A management knowledge

structure is presented that looks at information as a

process that leads to ways of addressing a manager’s

controllable natural resource elements. One way is to

provide turn-key products that address a specific area of

the knowledge structure.

Keywords: Management elements, science and

technology transfer, culture of science and management.

Introduction

Two individuals, a research scientist and a forest manager

are talking about new research results.

Mgr: I heard that you have some new and exciting

research results.

Sci: That’s right, these findings are a real advancement

in understanding ecosystem dynamics.

Mgr: How good are these findings?

Sci: They are significant.

Mgr: Really! Then production will become higher than

in the past.

1 Soil scientist (retired), Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson, WY.

Current address, 30920 Ashley Lake Rd., St. Ignatius, MT 59865-

9540; e-mail: gwarr@wecsa.com
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

involves propositions standing in logical or evidential

relationships with each other, and thus forming evidentiary structures. These structured relationships are roots

of value systems that guide human social and environmental interactions.

I will be addressing public land management,

primarily the Forest Service, because that is where I

worked. However, there are parallels to other agencies

that have a responsibility for managing some of this

planet’s natural resources. In the private sector, natural

resource management deals with the same opportunities

and constraints although they march to a different

drummer.

Organizational Culture

Science and management are two unique cultures where

there are distinctive procedural techniques and characteristic products. Each practitioner takes their own culture

for granted and considers that their assumptions are selfevident (Wagner 1995). All too often this leads to the

false assumption that information developed at one level

will meet everyone’s needs.

One reason is that each party has unique responsibilities and therefore has different ideas about which

components of information are most important. Neither

one is wrong because each perspective comes from traits

and products of the social environment where they apply

their skills (Krippner and Winkler 1995). Each has its

own language structure.

Language and Learning

Linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf (Anderson

1995) claimed that languages don’t simply serve as

neutral tools that people use to report what’s “out there”

—but rather that they set the ground rules for what people see, understand, and talk about. Every language is its

own set of blueprints for constructing reality, deciding

what will be noticed and what will be overlooked, and

establishing the rules for communication. In learning a

language, they said, a person “channels his reasoning

and builds the house of his consciousness.”

For example, as a Peace Corps volunteer in Honduras, Central America, I exchanged ideas in both Spanish

and English. In time, I found that by using the Spanish

language rather than English, one was likely to reach a

different, but not wrong, conclusion regarding some

questions. Until I understood that the structure and words

in each language were leading in different directions,

there were many times when a “grand idea” for a project

led to very different concepts for a solution—theirs and

mine. In a similar way, the languages of science and

management often lead in different directions.

Krippner and Winkler (1995) said this very succinctly; “People in each culture construct experience in

terms of the categories provided by their own linguistic

system, coming to terms with a ‘reality’ that has been

filtered through their language.”

A person sees what they have learned to see. In the

18th century, empiricists were impressed by the power of

mathematical techniques, which opened vast new realms

of knowledge in the natural sciences (Berlin 1995). They

asked themselves, like Socrates, why the same methods

should not succeed in establishing similar irrefutable

laws in all areas of human affairs. This was the beginning

of the search for a science-based explanation for all

questions.

For a long time, a science-based approach led to

many important advances in the acquisition of knowledge about the physical and biological world. However,

situations developed where people were required to

adapt their behavior to accommodate the new technologies, even when it did not seem to be a natural way of

doing something. But science produces facts that apply

only to the situation that was observed to arrive at

conclusions.

There is an inherent weakness in using only facts

because, facts alone do not, cannot, determine what is

right from what is wrong. People must decide how to use

the information to keep society functioning. We are

going from seeing science as the source of absolute and

final truth, to accepting it as a continuously changing
49

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

body of ideas without losing confidence in scientific

facts (Anderson 1995: 2) such as, water still continues to

run downhill because of gravity.

Philosopher Thomas Kuhn (1995: 190) told us

that transformations to new visions are usually gradual

and almost always irreversible. For example, a student

looking at a contour map for the first time sees only lines

on paper. After enough tries at transforming his vision,

the student becomes an inhabitant of the cartographer’s

world and sees a picture of the terrain. Also, natural

resource managers and scientists have their respective

world visions, which I consider to be subcategories of the

scientific-rational worldview (Anderson 1995: 110-116).

Following is a vision describing a knowledge structure

in the natural resource management world.

Resource Management

Natural resource management is about directing chaos

by merging physical, biological, and behavioral traits

in an interactive, multivariate approach that stresses the

importance of defining patterns, form, self-organization,

and adaptive qualities of complex processes (Krippner

and Winkler 1995: 166).

Managers such as forest supervisors and their respective resource staffs in range, watershed, etc., along with

technical specialists for soils, hydrology, forestry, etc., all

work together to create management information. These

decisionmakers and support personnel are responsible for

overall operations through their choices to implement or

approve land use activities or assessments or affect

policy and direction.

Staff members work with information about the

forest resources to create ways of obtaining resource

outputs. Ultimately, all forest activities must address

management information needs. How management information is used depends on the goals of an organization.

Goals—Respond to Public Values and

Create Economic Efficiency

In the private sector, economic returns on an investment

are the driving force because businesses exist to make

money for their owners. A corollary to the money-making

process is not spending it needlessly. Successful businesses differentiate between expenses that are needed to

stay in business and those characterized as moral obligations. To do otherwise would have companies operating

as charities, which would violate their responsibility to

their shareholders (Diamond 2005: 37-38). Costs not

directly supporting the primary outputs are externalized

unless there are statutory requirements to account for

them.

In the public sector, economic returns are not the

only drivers. Concerns of present and future stakeholders, the public, are more likely to be addressed. Organizational objectives are for public natural resource management to provide goods and services from the land

without impairing productivity or degrading water

quality.

Organizing Information

There are three basic premises: (1) information is a

resource just as are land, water, vegetation, and wildlife:

(2) information requires a knowledge structure for

effective use by management; and (3) managers respond

by using information to direct their controllable elements.

The natural resource knowledge structure (fig. 1) has

three general levels: (1) data about individual facts obtained from investigations, (2) interpretations to project

responses, and (3) management information that is the

integration of multiple resource responses.

Knowledge Structure

The words “knowledge” and “information” are used to

describe communication as it relates to natural resource
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

management. These familiar terms are often used interchangeably. However, in this context I attempt to give

each word a meaning that is built on popular definitions.

The categories or levels of information start with

the basic data collected during inventory work. Basic

data form the foundation data on interpretations about

potential resource responses to changing environmental

conditions. An example is how soil erosion might be

affected by a management action. Management information is created from interpretations about multiple resources along with social considerations.

This end product, management information, is used

to manipulate a set of controllable elements. These elements are the natural resource management tools used

to respond to social values, legal requirements, environmental dynamics, economics, and technological

capabilities.

Knowledge is organizing what is known about a

topic, like natural resources, into a relationship that

characterizes information content and flow. Overall,

knowledge is the familiarity, awareness, and understanding gained through experience and study in the broadest

sense.

Communication as a Method

Communications as a method involves moving thoughts,

ideas, and experiences between and among people by

using speech, writing, behavior, and signals.

Information as a Process

The process entails organizing details about the knowledge a natural resource manager can use to control a set

of management elements. This is a collection of facts and

data about specific events or situations for one or more

ecosystem or social functions.

Management Information

Management information includes an understanding of

the opportunities and constraints on forest resources that

Figure 1—Knowledge structure with management levels, examples of data and interpretations, and

potential information users at each level.
51

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

can be used to meet a multitude of needs and desires.

This information is used to guide the application of

natural resource management tools when responding to

social values, legal requirements, environmental dynamics, economics, and technological capabilities.

Management Tools

The key to planning for management practices is knowing which natural resource elements can be controlled.

These are properties a manager can manipulate through a

decision, to achieve the desired outcome (Warrington et

al. 1989). Here the focus is on quantity, quality, location,

timing, and mix of outputs. There are other elements, like

weather, that cannot be controlled even though they

have to be accounted for in the decisionmaking process.

Controllable Natural Resource Elements

Following are five controllable natural resource

elements:

• Quantity of outputs produced (e.g., board feet,

animal unit months, etc.) or inputs used (such as tree

planting, range improvements, etc.).

• Quality is the goal toward which the methods used

to implement the management practices are aimed

(Pirsig 1974). It is expressed through the effects of

chosen management practices on the functioning

and productivity of affected watersheds. This includes the areal extent of disturbances, the magnitude of disturbance, and the duration of the effects of

a disturbance.

• Location is where the practice occurs on the ground.

• Timing of practices through the sequencing of

entries into a watershed or the season of operation.

• Mix of outputs is only available to natural resource

managers for long-term management. This element

is more often used in agriculture than in forestry or

range management because crops can be changed

in a shorter period than is practical for forests or

rangelands.

Crossing the Divide

The usual science publication is written by scientists to

communicate with scientists. Transferring knowledge,

information, and technology from science to land managers revolves around social as well as technical processes. Effective communication with land managers

requires interdisciplinary information. Successful communication also requires carefully focused efforts to keep

the process from following a trajectory similar to that

described by the second law of thermodynamics, where

everything moves toward the lowest energy state.

Back in the old days, the members of the Watershed

Systems Development Group were discouraged from

going to regional meetings for the purpose of discussing

how to use the information in a publication. The rationale was that forest management specialists were educated people who could read and understand the

document. This approach ignored, at a minimum, that

readers were only going to see things through their own

cultural point of view.

Matching Research to Management

Research results need to be targeted on the appropriate

part of the management knowledge structure. Results

from individual research projects are usually only a piece

of the management puzzle. For example, a computerized

soil water model, REGIM4 (Warrington and Weathered

1983), used in real time for tree planting, requires results

from a number of studies, including one that identifies a

soil water stress level for Douglas-fir seedlings. This step

alone is crucial to meeting “quality” expectations from

tree planting contracts. REGIM4 works well, with a correlation between predicted and measured soil water content of around 80 percent. But this model was not widely

used because potential users did not inhabit the model

developer’s world, or have the modeler’s associated

visions about evaluating soil water content.
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Turn-Key Applications

Only the most motivated users will occasionally attempt

to do the implementation step for new procedures. This is

a weakness in the final REGIME4 publication. At that

time, reviewers didn’t think implementation steps were

appropriate information to include with the discussion

about the model because it was assumed that users would

know how to go about applying the tool on the ground.

By providing complete and ready-to-use solutions,

scientists, and developers will create more acceptance

than when end users must devise, design, or create ways

to implement a tool or finding.

Addressing Project Managers

An executive summary is not an abstract. An abstract is

a brief description about the content of a publication.

An executive summary helps the project manager understand how the research findings can improve management and indicates how these findings can be applied in

a management context. For example, presentations for

users should be made in a format displaying controllable

environmental elements that can be readily evaluated in

relation to economic, social, and legal concerns. Attribute charts and maps that combine multiple concerns

are very valuable at this level.

Managers want to know about research results. They

assume that the process of getting these results has been

properly reviewed within the science community. I recommend organizing management publications so that

the conclusions and applications are immediately apparent to the reader at the beginning of the document.

Then move to ever-increasing detail about the role of

supporting information, so it is available if needed. This

provides reading options that make the best use of a

manager’s time.

Technology Transfer Specialists

Ideally these individuals should have training and

experience in both research and management. They will

often be in the position of using reasoned judgement

when adapting research results to management needs.

Critics will be quick to find fault with almost everything

they are doing.

The untested assumptions used to link various technology elements together will be low-hanging fruit for

the science community. Scoping out management needs

is important given the ecological and sociological diversity that exists. Each user entity will see only a narrow

solution as being in their best interest, but all want the

product. Technology extension specialists will have a

unique and difficult communication responsibility.

Working Together

Leaving behind a cherished past of hard-earned life experiences is both frightening and exciting. This applies

to children growing up and adults shifting to new visions

of a seemingly chaotic world. These shifts are due to the

introduction of new tools or a new way of using the old

tools. The world didn’t change, only our description

changed with the changed perspective. I see a creative

interaction between human minds and the cosmos not

only as the source of scientific facts but also society’s

beliefs, personal perceptions about our surroundings,

and social interactions.

Literature Cited

Anderson, W.T., ed. 1995. The truth about the truth:

deconfusing and re-constructing the postmodern

world. New York: Tarcher/Putnam. 272 p.

Berlin, I. 1995. The idea of pluralism. In: Anderson,

W.T., ed. The truth about the truth: deconfusing and

re-constructing the postmodern world. New York:

Tarcher/Putnam: 47–52.

Diamond, J.M. 1999. Guns, germs, and steel: the fates of

human societies. New York: W.W. Norton &

Company, Inc. 496 p.
53

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Diamond, J.M. 2005. Collapse: how societies choose to

fail or succeed. New York: Viking Penguin, Penguin

Group (USA) Inc. 576 p.

Krippner, S.; Winkler, M. 1995. Studying consciousness

in the postmodern age. In: Anderson, Walter Truett,

ed. The truth about the truth: deconfusing and reconstructing the postmodern world. New York, NY:

Tarcher/Putnam: 160–169.

Kuhn, T. 1995. Scientists and their worldviews. In:

Anderson, W.T., ed. The truth about the truth:

deconfusing and re-constructing the postmodern

world. New York: Tarcher/Putnam: 189–198.

Pirsig, R.M. 1974. Zen and the art of motorcycle

maintenance. New York: William Morrow and

Company, Inc. 406 p.

Wagner, R. 1995. The idea of culture. In: Anderson, W.T.,

ed. The truth about the truth: deconfusing and reconstructing the postmodern world. New York:

Tarcher/Putnam: 53–57.

Warrington, G.E.; Leonard, S.G.; Moos, D.; Osen, C.;

Russell, W.E.; Sautter, E. 1989. The needs of the

users of soil survey information: reliability and

methods of presentation. In: Proceedings of national

cooperative soil survey conference. Lincoln, NE:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service: 93–129.

Warrington, G.E.; Weathered, J.D. 1983. REGIM4: a

deterministic soil water balance model. WSDG

Report WSDG-AD 00008. Watershed Systems

Development Group. 45 p. On file with: U.S. Forest

Service, 3825 E Mulberry Street., Fort Collins, CO

80524.
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726
55

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Communication Barriers to Applying Federal Research in Support of

Land Management in the United States

Vita Wright1

innovations. By understanding contextual influences

to communication within target audiences, research

communicators may be able to plan for and minimize

potential causes of misunderstanding within different

target management audiences. Recognizing that science

delivery and application approaches are often developed

on an ad hoc basis, this paper emphasizes the need to

understand specific influences to the communication

process within these audiences. Understanding influences to communication within target audiences will

help applied researchers, research application specialists,

and upper level managers prioritize limited delivery and

application resources and increase the likelihood that

these efforts result in application.

Keywords: Innovation-decision, science communication, research application, diffusion.

Introduction

A federal research scientist (researcher), charged with

developing knowledge to support federal land management, develops a new tool to help land managers accomplish their objectives. To make the tool relevant and

useful to managers, the researcher works closely with

managers throughout all stages of development. The

managers she interacts with not only demonstrate enthusiasm for the new approach, but also identify additional

ways in which it will be useful. After the tool is developed, the researcher publishes a manuscript and gives

several presentations at conferences and workshops

about how it works. With the exception of answering

specific requests for additional information, the researcher then switches to focus on developing other

potentially useful knowledge and techniques. If this tool,

Abstract

Barriers to effective communication between researchers

and managers can ultimately result in barriers to the application of scientific knowledge and technology for

land management. Both individual and organizational

barriers are important in terms of how they affect the first

three stages of the innovation-decision process: (1)

knowledge, where an individual is exposed to innovation and develops an understanding of how it works; (2)

evaluation, where an individual evaluates advantages

and disadvantages and forms a favorable or unfavorable

attitude toward innovation; and (3) decision, where an

individual engages in activities that lead to a choice to

either adopt or reject the innovation. Communication

studies provides insight into potential influences to the

communication and use of research results by federal

land managers. Effective communication refers to the

development of a common understanding between the

research communicator and the manager or practitioner

about both the existence and utility of an innovation.

Communication research reveals that people frequently

report leaving the same encounter with different perceptions of that encounter. So, it is not surprising that a

scientist presents results in what they perceive to be clear

terms and then the land manager returns to their daily

tasks with a modified perspective of what the scientist

intended to communicate, with continued uncertainty,

or with lack of interest that leads to passive rejection of

1 Research application program leader, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Aldo

Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, 790 E Beckwith Avenue,

Missoula, MT 59801; Tel: 406-542-4190; e-mail: vwright@fs.fed.us.
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

which represents many hours of labor and creative

thought by both researchers and managers, is like many

innovations, it will be used locally by the few managers

who contributed to its development and by some of their

colleagues. Other managers who happen to see the publication or hear a talk about the innovation might think

it sounds like a good idea but continue to do their jobs

without using it. An astute observer questions, “What

keeps federal land managers from using many of the

scientific innovations that will either make their jobs

easier or increase the likelihood that they’ll achieve

desired outcomes?”

Why Focus on Federal Research and Land

Management?

In the United States, federal land managers are required

to base decisions such as those that affect fire, fuels,

wildlife habitat, and invasive plants on the best available science. The U.S. Departments of Agriculture and

the Interior regularly allocate funding toward developing

and delivering scientific knowledge and tools in support

of this mandate. However, the U.S. Office of Management

and Budget recently expressed concern about whether

the full benefit of this investment is being reached. This

funding, and subsequently the scientific information

available for land management, may be jeopardized if

the federal research and management agencies cannot

demonstrate that managers are both aware of and using

federally funded research.

The goals of federal management and research programs can be achieved only if scientific knowledge and

tools are effectively transferred to land managers. Many

researchers in U.S. federal agencies work closely with

managers during an iterative process that identifies

research needs and ensures results are relevant. Once

research results are complete and tools are developed,

researchers make them available by publishing results,

hosting information on Web sites, and giving presentations to management audiences. In addition, U.S.

agencies work to improve the awareness of and access to

completed research by offering online publication distribution (e.g., http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us), library

and document delivery services (e.g., http://

www.nal.usda.gov/digitop; http://library.doi.gov/

ill.html), and searchable Web syntheses (e.g., http://

www.fs.fed.us/database/feis; http://

forestencyclopedia.net).

Most of these approaches improve access for managers who actively search for scientific knowledge and

tools. However, the adoption and use of innovations by

land managers is dependent on more than information

accessibility. In British Columbia, Hollstedt and Swift

(2000) identified the following categories of barriers to

the communication and adoption of scientific research

into forest policy and management: information sources

(not knowing what information is available), information

access (not knowing where to find the information),

cultural differences (between researchers and research

users), technology (limited access or incentives), and

capacity (time, money, skills, desire). Kearns and Wright2

found similar personal, organizational, and external

barriers among USDA Forest Service fire, range, and

recreation managers. Additionally, during a Forest

Service Roundtable on science-policy integration that

was sponsored by Deputy Chiefs for Research and the

National Forest System, prominent research scientists

and agency decisionmakers also acknowledged barriers

posed by different cultures and perspectives of researchers and managers (USDA Forest Service 1995). Finally,

recent interviews of field-level researchers and managers

in the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Region noted

that communication problems arise from managers’ and

2

 Kearns, S.A.; Wright, V. 2002. Barriers to the use of science: USFS

case study on fire, weed, and recreation management in wilderness.

Unpublished report. On file with: Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research

Institute, 790 E Beckwith Avenue, Missoula, MT 59801.
57

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

researchers’ perceptions of each other, ineffective use of

communication channels, and a paucity of time, awareness, interest, and mutual understanding.3

 Although each of these efforts identified individual

and social barriers to the communication and use of research results, none of them drew upon the existing body

of knowledge from communication studies to help improve understanding of or develop strategies for reducing

these barriers. Additionally, established efforts, such as

the aforementioned Web sites, that aim to make information accessible do not generally address many of the

contextual barriers to the communication of research

results. Drawing from the communication literature, this

paper introduces potential influences on the effectiveness of communication between managers and researchers and on practitioners’ decisions about whether to

adopt scientific knowledge and tools. It does not address

the preferred information sources or methods that

managers use to access information.

Innovation—Decision Process

The Diffusion of Innovations theory (Rogers 1995,

Wright 2004) describes what happens once an individual

gains initial knowledge of new ideas (i.e., innovations)

such as those presented by the scientific community.

This can be either a passive process where a person is

exposed to new information through any of a variety of

communication channels, such as face-to-face, written,

and mass communication, or an active process where the

individual searches for innovations to meet their needs.

If a person’s interest is piqued by exposure to the innovation, the individual actively begins the “innovationdecision” process by gathering information. According

to the theory, an individual initially works toward understanding how the innovation works. Then the individual

3 Lundquist, J. 2004. Communicating fire science research between

the Rocky Mountain Research Station and national forests within

Region 2. Unpublished report. On file with: USDA Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Research Station, 240 West Prospect Road, Fort

Collins, CO 80526-2098.

gathers information to weigh the potential advantages

and disadvantages of using the innovation and uses this

to develop either a favorable or an unfavorable attitude

toward it. If uncertainty is reduced to a tolerable level

and a person develops a favorable attitude, the individual decides to try incorporating the innovation into

ongoing practices.

This overarching theory, often used to understand or

facilitate social change, recognizes that it takes time for

individuals, and communities, to incorporate innovative

concepts and techniques into established approaches

and practices. The amount of time depends in part on

individual characteristics of the potential adopters,

social values and expectations, and communication networks. The innovation-decision process is distinguished

from other types of decisionmaking based on the inherent uncertainty associated with deciding whether to use

new ideas or to stick with existing, known, practices.

Individuals have different levels of comfort with uncertainty that affect how they obtain their information and

how quickly they adopt new ideas. They are also influenced by the culture and norms of the communities in

which they work. Rogers (1995) reminds us that communities function as social systems, with interrelated units,

communication networks, and established social norms.

Federal researchers can use a better understanding of

land managers, including individual and social influences on the innovation-decision process in different

management communities, to reduce barriers to the use

of scientific innovations.

The discussion here focuses on communication

barriers that are likely to influence the first three stages

of the innovation-decision process as described by

Rogers (1995): (1) knowledge, where an individual is

exposed to innovation and gains an understanding of

how it works; (2) evaluation, where an individual

evaluates advantages and disadvantages and forms a

favorable or unfavorable attitude toward innovation; and

(3) decision, where an individual engages in activities
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

that lead to a choice to either adopt or reject the innovation. These stages occur along a continuum rather than

as separate stages.

Effective Communication

Communication, as both the cooperative construction

and exchange of ideas, is fundamental to how individuals navigate through the innovation-decision process.

Managers obtain information that increases their awareness of and ability to evaluate innovations by communicating with researchers, technology transfer or application specialists hired to communicate results, and other

managers. Face-to-face communication among researchers and managers takes place in a variety of venues.

Research is commonly presented at professional conferences and symposia, where results are communicated

both during professional presentations and during formal

and informal interactions outside presentations. Additionally, research results are communicated at smaller

workshops, meetings, and training courses focused on

specific management issues. Finally, once managers are

aware of and interested in innovations, researchers

participate in onsite or phone consultations with individual management units to answer questions about the

relevance of research results to specific units and their

management issues.

From the researcher perspective, effective communication about innovations leads to their use by land managers. In fact, researchers often express frustration that

managers do not incorporate research results into management decisions and practices, even after they hear

about them. Rogers (1995) explained that rejection of an

innovation can occur at each stage in the innovationdecision process, and that many innovations are rejected

passively despite exposure to the innovation (i.e., use of

the innovation is never really considered).

From the perspective of land managers, effective

communication with researchers reduces uncertainty

about how to use innovations to achieve their goals

(Rogers 1995). This includes two types of uncertainty:

general uncertainty about the best approach for achieving their goals, and uncertainty regarding specific

messages conveyed about an innovation during communication with a researcher or research application specialist. For instance, uncertainty can exist about what the

innovation is, how it works, and why it works. According

to Diffusion of Innovations theory, once individuals

become aware of and interested in innovations, they

spend the evaluation stage actively seeking information

that reduces uncertainty about the advantages and

disadvantages of using those innovations (Rogers 1995).

Overcoming different primary communication goals,

effective communication leads to the development of a

common understanding between the research communicator and the manager about the existence and utility of

an innovation. Knowledge from communication studies

offers insight into how face-to-face communication

between researchers and managers occurs and what influences the outcome of communicative interactions

about innovations (e.g., whether managers pursue the

use of research to which they are exposed). In sum,

the outcome of communicative interactions depends on

the individual and social contexts in which they occur.

Potential Misunderstanding

Ambiguity

Communication research reveals that people frequently

report leaving the same encounter with different perceptions of that encounter. So it is not surprising that a

researcher presents results in what they perceive to be

clear terms and then the land manager returns to their

daily tasks with a modified perspective of what the

researcher intended to communicate, with continued

uncertainty, or with lack of interest that leads to passive

rejection of innovations.

Traditionally, communication refers to the process

of transferring information from a sender to a receiver.

Communication scholars refer to this as the transmission,
59

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

or conduit, model of communication. It is a simplistic

model where people understand each other by encoding

and decoding messages based on shared language rules

(Jacobs 2002, Roberts and Bavelas 1996). However,

most communication researchers subscribe to a different

model, called the inferential model, which acknowledges

that a speaker’s intended meaning cannot be entirely

understood through language rules (Jacobs 2002).

Further, meanings can evolve and conversations can

lead to shared meaning that is created during the course

of conversation that goes beyond a communicator’s

original intent. In this view, the meaning of a conversation is negotiated between communicators (Roberts and

Bavelas 1996). Regardless of the communication model

one subscribes to, communication researchers agree that

ambiguity exists and misunderstanding is likely pervasive.4

Sillars (2002) defined misunderstanding as “intentions, meanings, thoughts or feelings” attributed to a

speaker that are different from those intended by the

speaker. There are a variety of factors that contribute to

misunderstanding during communication. For instance,

people generally understand messages based in part on

shared language rules; however, these rules are often

incomplete, and messages can incorporate the rules in

an infinite number of ways. As a result, there is always

some degree of ambiguity that requires inference when

interpreting verbal or written messages (Jacobs 2002).

Inference results from the “layered knowledge beneath,

behind, or within” sentences that can lead speakers and

listeners to understand messages in different ways (Duck

2002). Additionally, inference is necessary because

people often use language unconsciously, both when

conveying and when interpreting messages, and so

people are not always aware of their communication

4 Sillars, A.L. 2002. For better or worse: re-thinking the role of

“misperception” and communication in close relationships and

families. 17th annual B. Aubrey Fisher Memorial Lecture, University

of Utah.

choices. Finally, communicators can have multiple goals,

which leads to the ambiguity of underlying, implicit

messages that are inadvertently expressed (for instance,

through nonverbal cues) and sometimes contradict

explicit verbal messages. Inferences about a speaker’s

goals are likely to influence the understanding of that

speaker’s messages (Berger 1997).

Selective Attention and Context

Misunderstanding can also result from selective attention. All people are selective about the messages they

hear for a variety of reasons. The “cognitive miser”

metaphor used by social psychologists suggests that

people strive to achieve “the greatest possible cognitive

effect for the smallest possible processing effort” (Sillars

and Vangelisti 2006). In other words, people conserve

mental resources by being extremely selective about the

signals to which they attend. This reduces mental stimuli

to the point where individuals can feasibly process them;

the consequence is that it also creates the potential for

different individuals to pay attention to different signals.

People are more likely to pay attention to messages

about scientific findings and products if they perceive

the messages to be relevant to their goals or needs. Managers are often driven to learn about innovations as a

result of dissatisfaction with current approaches; however, it is also possible for needs to develop once a person is exposed to an innovation. Rogers (1995) used the

example of a new clothing fashion, where a person

decides they need fashionable clothing only after being

exposed to it, to demonstrate that needs are not always

identified in advance. Part of the lack of understanding

between researchers and managers may stem from a

problem or need that is perceived by the researcher

but not the manager. This situation is reflected in the

following statement, “We may want food and not need

it. And we may need vitamins and minerals and fail to

want them” (Edgar Dale quoted in Rogers 1995). In other
60

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

words, researchers and physicians who study how the

human body works know that people need vitamins, but

someone working outside these professions may not

identify vitamins as a priority. As a result, people in the

latter group may not pay attention to messages about

how to incorporate vitamins into their daily routines.

Perception is also important in determining the outcome of communication events. Perception refers to the

way individuals interpret messages and provide order

and meaning to their environments (Bowditch and

Buono 2005). Humans have a natural tendency for longestablished perceptions to become ingrained, which

means they often hear what they expect to hear rather

than what the speaker conveys. This can be especially

true when there are stereotypes (e.g., conventional beliefs

about the “typical” researcher or the “typical” manager).

Furthermore, people can be motivated to maintain inaccurate impressions despite explicit information that

contradicts these impressions (Sillars and Vangelisti

2006). For example, people tend to interpret information so it is congruent with existing beliefs and attitudes

because hearing messages that are incompatible with

existing beliefs can lead to cognitive dissonance, or

internal conflict, which is troubling (Rogers 1995). By

hearing what they expect to hear, people can protect

their worldviews and identities and reduce the stress

associated with changing deep-rooted views.

According to the Diffusion of Innovations theory,

individuals are most likely to interact with others who

they perceive to hold similar personal and social characteristics (e.g., personal or cultural beliefs, education,

work experience, social status). Communication among

such individuals, described as homophilous, is more

comfortable and more effective because these individuals share common understandings and subcultural

language. In contrast, heterophilous individuals are

perceived to differ in these social characteristics

(Rogers 1995). Researchers and managers are often

heterophilous. In addition to increased technical understanding of an innovation, researchers often have different levels of education and are motivated by different

priorities than many of the managers who are responsible

for adopting and implementing innovations. According

to Rogers (1995), communication among heterophilous

individuals can be problematic when it causes internal

conflict for those who find messages to be inconsistent

with the beliefs or the environments in which they are

used to operating. Such differences can result in misunderstandings (Rogers 1995).

Much of the understanding gained during interactions depends on the individual and social contexts in

which communication occurs. Individual contexts that

are likely to influence the communication and adoption

of research results include a person’s prior knowledge,

beliefs, attitudes, and comfort with risk/uncertainty.

Sillars and Vangelisti (2006) note that social, cultural,

and historical factors also influence the ways people

interpret messages. This includes social norms such as

an agency or administrative unit’s organizational values,

assumptions, and expectations. Messages can also have

different meanings when conveyed in different social and

institutional settings or by different messengers (e.g., a

supervisor, well-respected peer, disrespected peer, friend,

or spouse) (Knapp et al. 2002). Bateson (1978) went so

far as to say, “Without context, words and actions have

no meaning at all.” According to this view, messages

about research results can only be interpreted, and

meaning can only be generated, in relation to the context in which they are delivered (Duck 2002, Knapp et al.

2002); research communicators will be more effective if

they understand this context.

In summary, which signals are selected depends in

part on the context created by background knowledge

and beliefs that exist as a result of the message interpreter’s history. These can change as communication

patterns between people evolve over time and as relationships develop. A longer history of communicating
61

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

together, or of participating in the same cultural environment, is likely to lead to shared knowledge, memories,

and principles of inference that can either enhance

understanding during an interaction or result in patterns

of continued misunderstandings (Duck 2002, Sillars and

Vangelisti 2006). Duck (2002) noted that, “No one talks

without reference to things that they believe to be commonly understood,” because references to shared notions

facilitate the development of common understanding.

Conclusion

Much of the communication about innovations is

initiated by researchers and research application specialists (e.g., during presentations at professional conferences or workshops). With so much potential for

misunderstanding owing to the inherent ambiguity of

communication, inference, and selective attention, researchers and others who strive to communicate research

results need to understand contextual influences to the

outcome of communication between researchers and

managers. Researchers, research application specialists,

and upper level managers can use knowledge of potential influences of misunderstanding to develop strategies

aimed at achieving greater mutual understanding

between these two groups. In fact, Berger (1997) discussed the need to predict the beliefs and actions of

message recipients in order to produce effective messages. He suggested some uncertainty about these can

be reduced in advance by acquiring information about

message recipients as well as the social context in which

messages are likely to be received. In summary, by understanding contextual influences on communication

within target audiences, researchers and others who

communicate research results may be able to plan for or

minimize potential causes of misunderstanding with

these audiences. Reducing misunderstanding will

ultimately increase the effectiveness of communication

about innovative knowledge and tools.

Acknowledgments

I appreciate Alan Sillars’ insights and comments on the

discussion of communication and misunderstanding.

Thanks also to David Parsons for his thoughtful review.

Research presented in this paper is part of a project

supported by the USDA Forest Service: Aldo Leopold

Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Pacific Northwest Research Station,

National Fire Plan, and Washington Office—Fire and

Aviation Management; the Joint Fire Science Program;

the BLM National Science and Technology Center; and

the National Center for Landscape Fire Analysis.

Literature Cited

Bateson, G. 1978. Mind and nature: a necessary unity.

New York: E.P. Dutton. 235 p.

Berger, C. 1997. Message production under uncertainty.

In: Phillipson, G.; Albrecht, T.L., eds. Developing

communication theories. Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press: 29–55.

Bowditch, J.L.; Buono, A.F. 2005. A primer on

organizational behavior. 6th ed. New York: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc. 458 p.

Duck, S. 2002. Hypertext in the key of G: three types of

“history” as influences on conversational structure

and flow. Communication Theory. 12: 41–62.

Hollstedt, C.; Swift, K. 2000. Barriers to integrating

science into policy and practice. In: Hollstedt, C.;

Sutherland, K.; Innes, T., eds. Proceedings, From

science to management and back: a science forum for

southern interior ecosystems of British Columbia.

Kamloops, BC: Southern Interior Forest Extension

and Research Partnership: 33–34.

Jacobs, S. 2002. Language and interpersonal

communication. In: Knapp, M.L.; Daly, J.A., eds.

Handbook of interpersonal communication. 3rd ed.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 213–239.
62

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Knapp, M.L.; Daly, J.A.; Albada, K.F.; Miller, G.R.

2002. Background and current trends in the study of

interpersonal communication. In: Knapp, M.L.; Daly,

J.A., eds. Handbook of interpersonal communication.

3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 3–20.

Roberts, G.L.; Bavelas, J.B. 1996. The communicative

dictionary: a collaborative theory of meaning. In:

Stewart, J., ed. Reflections on the representational

use of language. Albany, NY: State University of New

York Press: 135–160.

Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New

York: The Free Press. 519 p.

Sillars, A.; Vangelisti, A.L. 2006. Communication: basic

properties and their relevance to personal

relationships. In: Vangelisti, A.L.; Perlman, D., eds.

The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships.

New York: Cambridge University Press: 331–352.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995.

Navigating into the future. Rensselaerville

Roundtable: integrating science and policymaking.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

16 p.

Wright, V. 2004. How do land managers adopt scientific

knowledge and technology? Contributions of the

Diffusion of Innovations theory. In: Munro, N.

Dearden, P.; Herman, T.B.; Beazley, K.; BondrupNielson, S., eds. Making ecosystem-based management work. Proceedings of the fifth international

conference on science and management of protected

areas. [CD-ROM]. Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada:

SAMPAA. ISBN: 0-9699338-6-X. http://

www.sampaa.org/PDF/ch8/8.3.pdf. (March 28, 2007).
63

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Methods
64

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726
65

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Video-Teleconferencing: A Powerful Tool For Technology Transfer

Robert E. Bardon1 and Susan E. Moore2

an economical means of continuing education for

natural resource professionals while meeting the administrative demands and legislative edicts for cost containment and cost accountability that challenge the traditional means of engagement facilitated by extension.

Each year, the series offers 6 to 10 topics ranging from

technical and policy aspects of forestry to traditional

forest management issues and practices. The program

has been instrumental in providing educational opportunities at a reasonable cost to participants. The ability

of participants to interact with researchers and other

professionals, save money on the cost of attending conferences, and meet work schedule responsibilities has

been key to the success of the program. The authors

analyze 4 years of evaluation data to determine participants’ time and cost savings, level of satisfaction, increase in knowledge, and applicability to their

professional forestry work.

Keywords: Technology transfer, continuing education, distance learning, video-teleconferencing.

Introduction

The North Carolina State University Department of

Forestry and Environmental Resources extension and

outreach programs developed and implemented the

Forestry Issues Series, a conference series delivered via

multipoint video-teleconferencing. The program was

developed to provide an economical means of continuing education for natural resource professionals while

meeting the administrative demands and legislative

edicts for cost containment and cost accountability that

challenge the traditional means of engagement facilitated by extension. Each year, the series topics range

from technical and policy aspects of forest management

Abstract

Administrative demands and legislative edicts for cost

containment and cost accountability pressure universities to move beyond the traditional means of technology

transfer between researchers and the public. Costeffective solutions are needed to facilitate technology

transfer. Multipoint video teleconferencing is an option

that offers simultaneous video and audio for communication between researchers and practitioners and allows the

two groups the opportunity to interact in real time.

Through the 1990s, North Carolina invested heavily

in electronic communication to ensure information

access and equity for all citizens of the state. This investment resulted in the North Carolina Research and Education Network and North Carolina Information Highway.

These networks offer the opportunity for information

delivery to multiple sites in multiple states via videoteleconferencing through the microwave standard

system, the H.320 system and Internet protocol. Based

on the need for accessible face-to-face training and using

the information exchange opportunities provided by the

information networks, North Carolina State University

Extension Forestry developed the Forestry Issues Series.

The Forestry Issues Series, co-administered by the

Forestry Educational Outreach Program, is a multistate

conference series delivered via multipoint videoteleconferencing. The program was developed to provide

1

Associate professor and extension specialist, North Carolina State

University, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources,

Campus Box 8003, Raleigh, NC 27695-8003; Tel: 919-515-5575;

e-mail: robert_bardon@ncsu.edu.

2

Assistant professor and director of the Forestry Educational Outreach

Program, North Carolina State University, Department of Forestry

and Environmental Resources, Campus Box 8003, Raleigh, NC

27695-8003.
66

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

to traditional forest management issues. This is a statewide program that targets private and public sector

natural resource professionals.

The driving force behind natural-resource-based

continuing education in North Carolina has been the

need for continuing education credits in order to maintain registration as a forester with the State of North

Carolina. Prior to 1999, the predominant methods for

obtaining continuing education credits included field

days, short courses, workshops, and conferences delivered on site to participants. These have been effective

methods in reaching traditional Extension audiences

(Harmon and Jones 1997, Londo and Monaghon 2002,

Prestemon 1986) and are still an integral part of the

outreach program within the department.

Through the 1990s North Carolina invested heavily

in electronic communication to ensure information

access and equity for all citizens of the state. This investment resulted in the North Carolina Research and Education Network and North Carolina Information Highway.

These networks offer an opportunity for information

delivery to multiple sites in multiple states via videoteleconferencing through the microwave standard system, the H.320 system and Internet protocol.

Research has shown that multipoint video-teleconferencing can be a cost-effective method for technology

transfer (Kelsey and Mincemoyer 2001, Kolomeychuck

and Peltz 1992), while maintaining the ability of twoway interaction, which is essential to effective communications (Fulford and Zhang 1993). The client’s need for

continuing education credits and an inexpensive means

of obtaining the credits, the administrative demand for

cost containment, cost-efficiency, and cost accountability, and the creation of a technology transfer system

prompted the development of the video-conference

series.

Methods

The Forestry Issues Series operates as a fee-based

program to provide program sustainability. The series

originates from North Carolina State University and is

broadcast live via analog to as many as 12 sites. Sites

are capable of both broadcasting and receiving and are

located at community colleges, universities, or extension

centers. Sites are traditional classrooms or conference

rooms that have been upgraded with cameras, televisions, and microphones. Equipment used to broadcast

is also a part of the facility. Extension specialists and

continuing education professionals are responsible for

planning, coordinating, and implementing the series.

The annual series, which began in the fall of 2000,

ranges from 6 to 10 conferences, scheduled to correspond with the fall and spring semesters. Summer break

is used for planning and preparation of the annual series.

Con-ferences have been offered in the broad areas of

environmental stewardship, forest management, innovative technologies, and professional development.

Conferences are 3 hours long and are presented in a

traditional conference style with speakers presenting the

information followed by question-and-answer sessions.

Each site is provided an opportunity to ask questions,

with the conference facilitator at the originating site

and the host at each remote site acting as facilitators.

The conference facilitator is either an extension specialist or the director of the Forestry Educational Outreach

Program. Site hosts are registrants who have their registration fee waived in return for hosting the site. In

addition to facilitating questions and answers, site hosts

assist with handouts, evaluations, and registrations.

Extension specialists, research faculty, and invited

instructors (from public and private sector) serve as

presenters. Guidelines for the preparation of presentations are provided to each presenter to assist with the

development of materials that will be broadcast across

the network. These guidelines assure that the materials,

which are viewed on televisions, are readable by the

participants.

Targeted audiences include natural resource professionals both in the public and private sectors. Several
67

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

means of marketing are used to promote the series to

these audiences. They include:

• Direct mailing

• Email distribution

• Web posting

• Posting to list servers

• Notification of government agencies and

organizations

Evaluation data is collected at the end of each conference and used in assessing program impact. Since

2000, evaluations have been used to assess:

• Individual cost savings

• Program quality

• Willingness to attend similar traditional conferences

versus teleconferences

• Primary reason for attending

• Benefits of attending the video-conference, e.g., save

money, meet work schedule responsibilities

• Level of satisfaction

• Suggestions for improvements

• Suggestions for topics

Results and Discussion

Thus far, 31 workshops have been offered, in which

2,600 registrants from North Carolina and bordering

states have participated. Registrations have increased

from 595 registrants the first season to 671 registrants

the fourth season, with a peak registration of 704 during

the third season (table 1). Even though there was a

decrease in the number of conferences offered, the

number of registrants per conference was greater during

the last two conference seasons than the first two conference seasons (table 1). Beginning with the second conference season, participants were asked in the evaluation

at the end of each conference what was their primary

reason for attending the teleconference. Over 60 percent

of the participants in each season have indicated that

obtaining continuing education credits is the primary

reason they attend the teleconference series (table 2).

Over 7,000 continuing education credits have been

awarded. The increase in registrations and the need for

continuing education credits as the primary reason for

attending the teleconference indicates that participants

in the teleconference series find this to be an acceptable

delivery method in meeting their continuing education

needs.

The ability of a participant to attend a conference

and return to work the same day is a major benefit of

the teleconference series (fig. 1). Traditional conferences

often are held in one location with participants having

to travel long distances to attend. Based on evaluations,

the average one-way distance traveled by participants if

they were to attend a similar conference in Raleigh or

Charlotte, North Carolina, is 235 miles (378.19 km). This

travel often results in long hours away from other work

responsibilities and costs for lodging, meals, and mileage. The average one-way distance a participant traveled

to attend a teleconference in North Carolina is approximately 36 miles (57.94 km). For every dollar invested

(registration cost) by participants, participants perceive

individual cost savings of approximately $25 in the 00-

01 season, $19 in the 01-02 season, $18 in the 02-03

season, and $15 in the 03-04 season (table 3). The

decrease in cost savings between the first and second

season and the third and fourth seasons is due to the

increase in the registration fees during those seasons.

The cost savings are savings in the cost of time and

travel expenses (table 3). This translates into an economic cost savings for participants at over $1 million for

all conferences to date. The majority of cost savings were

in time savings (fig. 2), the time that an employee is able

to meet other work responsibilities and not be at a

traditional conference. The ability of participants to save

money on the cost of attending conferences and the

ability to meet work responsibilities have been key to

the success of the program.

Cost of the video-teleconference series has been

nominal for participants because of the minimal direct

operating cost in running the program (table 4). These
68

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Table 1—Number of conferences, number of registrations, and

average number of registrations per conference season

Registrations per

Conference Conferences Registrations conference season

– – – – – – Number – – – – – – Average number

2000-01 9 595 66.11

2001-02 9 630 70.00

2002-03 7 704 100.57

2003-04 6 671 111.80

Table 2—Primary reason for attending a teleconference. Participants were

asked at the end of each conference “What is your primary reason for attending

this teleconference?”

Conference season

Primary reason 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04

Percent

To earn continuing education credit 61 61 65

Subject matter content 22 20 21

Personal enrichment 11 13 10

Advancement in current job or career 5 5 4

Other 1 1 0

Figure 1—Ways video-teleconferencing technology helps the user based on evaluation data collected during the 2001–2002 and 2002–

2003 seasons. Rated based on the scale of 1—does not help at all to 4—fully helps.
69

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

operating costs are similar to what it cost to deliver a

traditional program of like content. Registration fees

cover this nominal cost. Costs associated with broadcasting and receiving, which includes facility fees, line

charges, and charges for broadcast and receiving services, have been covered by sources other than registration fees. If these costs were not covered, costs associated

with broadcasting and receiving would range from $50

to $100 per hour depending on the site and would be

Table 3—Cost savings per dollar invested, per conference season, for time,

mileage, meals, and lodging

Conference season

2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04

Dollars

Time away from work 17.45 12.59 12.81 10.91

Mileage 3.67 2.62 4.44 3.44

Meals 1.51 1.65 1.31 0.52

Lodging 2.39 2.53 0.10 0.28

 Total 25.03 19.39 18.66 15.15

Figure 2—Percentage of savings per dollar invested, per conference season, for time, mileage, meals, and lodging.

Table 4—Cost to conduct one conference

Expense type Cost

Dollars

Administration 703

Supplies and materials 660

Printing/mailing/copying 703

Total cost 2,066
70

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

approximately $3,000 per conference. To date, receiving

sites have covered the fees associated with the facility

and line charges. Because all of the conferences originate from the College of Natural Resources facility,

broadcasting fees are currently covered by the College

of Natural Resources at North Carolina State University.

If the site fees were not covered by other sources, the

registration costs would double from $30 to $60. Other

costs that could raise the registration fee include costs

associated with bringing in speakers and site hosts.

In 2003, a postevaluation was mailed to participants

6 months to 1 year after the conference season. The

survey was used to gather data related to application

of information received and impact on job skills. Review

of the data indicates:

• 99 percent of the participants had an increase in

their understanding of the subject matter.

• 98 percent of the participants applied information

they received during the teleconference.

• 77 percent of the participants enhanced their job

skills by attending the teleconference.

A word of caution though: the postevaluation is

based on one season’s worth of data and is a measure of

short-term success; it is not a measure of the long-term

impact the program has had on preserving or enhancing

the client’s well-being and long-term interest. Further

evaluation is needed to understand the long-term impact

outreach and extension programs delivered through

distance education technology will have on the client’s

well-being and long-term interest.

Other benefits attributed by those involved in the

forest issues series include:

• Providing a direct link between researchers and

professionals who then put the research findings to

work.

• Providing researchers the opportunity to receive

direct feedback on findings, and the practicality of

proposed new methods, and to obtain ideas for

further research.

• Providing greater cooperation between faculty,

governmental agencies, and external stakeholders.

Conclusion

The extension and outreach programs within the Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources

have found the use of video-conferencing to be a costeffective means of providing continuing education. The

Forestry Issues Series has added another powerful tool to

meet the demands of continuing education for natural

resource professionals. The program has been instrumental in providing educational opportunities at a reasonable cost to participants. With participation in each

video-conference continuing to rise and the administrative demands and legislative edicts for cost containment,

cost-efficiency, and cost accountability continuing to

grow, extension programs delivered through multipoint

video-conference technology will continue to be used to

meet future demands for continuing education.

Literature Cited

Fulford, C.P.; Zhang, S. 1993. Perceptions of

interaction: the critical predictor in distance

education. The American Journal of Distance

Education. 7(3): 9–21.

Harmon, A.H.; Jones, S.B. 1997. Forestry demonstrations: What good is a walk in the woods? Journal

of Extension. 35(1). http://www.joe.org/joe/

1997february/rb3.html. (April 10, 2006).

Kelsey, T.W.; Mincemoyer, C.C. 2001. Exploring the

potential of in-service training through distance

education. Journal of Extension. 39(2). http://

www.joe.org/joe/2001april/rb7.html. (April 10,

2006).
71

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Kolomeychuk, T.; Peltz, D.P. 1992. Assessing the

effectiveness of interactive compressed video at the

University of Minnesota. Education Technology.

32(5): 61–63.

Londo, A.J.; Monaghan, T.A. 2002. Forest landowner

short courses at Mississippi State University. Journal

of Extension. 40(5). http://www.joe.org/joe/

2002october/rb5.shtml. (April 10, 2006).

Prestemon, D.R. 1986. Forestry Field Days—an old

idea that really works. Journal of Extension.

24(1). http://www.joe.org/joe/1986spring/iw1.html.

(April 10, 2006).
72

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726
73

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Challenges and Opportunities in Forest Restoration Outreach: The

Example of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests

Peter Friederici1

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws.) forests. Through an ever-evolving combination of print

and electronic publications, public outreach activities,

and land manager workshops, we attempt to keep varied

audiences abreast of the latest developments in the

science and application of restoration work. This paper

outlines a broad restoration outreach strategy and

discusses challenges encountered as those working to

improve the health of public-lands forests continue to

expand the audience for their work.

Keywords: Forest restoration, ponderosa pine,

Southwestern United States, outreach.

Introduction: The Complexities of

Restoration

Ecological restoration is a fast-growing approach to the

management of forests and many other ecosystem types

in North America, and throughout the world (Arno and

Fiedler 2005, Jordan 2003). Restoration, according to

the Society for Ecological Restoration International

(SERI), is “an intentional activity that initiates or

accelerates the recovery of an ecosystem with respect

to its health, integrity and sustainability. . . . Restoration

attempts to return an ecosystem to its historic trajectory”

(SERI 2004). Restoration can simultaneously return

ecosystems to greater ecological health, make a positive

contribution to the human economy, and enable people

to actively participate in the management of natural

areas near their homes. Yet, it is also a complex and often

contentious endeavor (Jordan 2003).

Restoration is complex for several reasons. The

scientific information on which it is based is always

incomplete. Restoration is largely an effort to guide

Abstract

The majority of forest managers, informed policymakers,

and educated members of the public agree that restoration of dry, fire-adapted forests of western North America

is a critical ecological and social need. A large body

of scientific research documents how forests that were

once open and parklike have grown dense with small

trees, resulting in significant increases in fire hazards

and declines in ecological values.

It has been difficult, though, to convert even detailed scientific understanding into effective results on

the ground. Reasons include numerous economic and

social hurdles, but also difficulties in translating research

results into tactics applicable in the field. Ecologists

often require many years before they are willing to

identify causal relationships between specific restoration treatments and identifiable ecological results.

Managers often demand immediate answers to ecological questions so that they can make pressing real-time

decisions. Policymakers and the public are often unwilling to wait for peer-reviewed scientific results and want

to know quickly whether economic, political, and social

investments in restoration work are warranted.

This paper uses the example of the Ecological

Restoration Institute’s (ERI) outreach program to assess

the difficulties and opportunities inherent in translating

science into action. The ERI maintains a broad effort

aimed at publicizing timely yet scientifically rigorous

information about the restoration of Southwestern

1 Assistant professor of journalism, School of Communication, Box

5619, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011; e-mail:

peter.friederici@nau.edu.
74

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

future management through knowledge of past conditions. Although researchers have many tools for plumbing the ecological past, our understanding of that past is

always partial and often biased by preconceptions (Egan

and Howell 2001, Landres et al. 1999). Even our understanding of how ecosystems work in the present moment

is always incomplete. Managers seldom know as much

as they would like to know about interactions among

plants, animals, climate, geology, human activities, and

other factors that affect ecological circumstances and,

hence, their management decisions.

Restoration also is not a matter solely for scientists

and for professional land managers. Rather, it engages

broad segments of the public who are interested in conservation, recreation, resource-based industries, even

the safety of their homes and neighborhoods (Cortner

2003). That breadth of interest can bring wide support

to restoration projects but also instill a great deal of

controversy when forest managers propose such actions

as mechanical thinning or prescribed burning (Allen et

al. 2002, Cortner 2003, Friederici 2003). The social

landscape in which restoration takes place is often as

complex as the ecological landscape. Restoration

touches on questions of policy, economics, decisionmaking processes, and ultimately on the deep-seated

values that people perceive in forests and other landscapes (Jordan 2003, Oelschlaeger 2003). For these

reasons, restoration advocates cannot work in isolation;

rather, they have a critical need to focus on outreach to

the varied audiences and many people who are interested

in the topic.

Case Study: Southwestern Ponderosa Pine

Forests

In no landscape ought it to be easier to engage residents

in the process of restoration than in the dry, fire-adapted

forests of western North America, and especially in the

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws) forests of the Southwest (Arizona, New Mexico, and southern Colorado and Utah). Many lines of historical

evidence have shown that these forests were once subject

to frequent low-severity fires that maintained an open

forest structure and a diverse understory of grasses, forbs,

and shrubs (Allen et al. 2002, Covington and Moore

1994, Swetnam and Baisan 1996). With the advent of

intensive livestock grazing, logging, and fire suppression

in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the regular cycle

of frequent fires was broken. Fires vanished from many

parts of the forest landscape for decades.

As a result, many of these forests grew dense with

thickets of small trees. Today these stands and their

associated large trees are at risk of severe stand-replacing

crown fire that threatens human communities and the

ecological integrity of the forest. They also are subject to

severe bark beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) attacks.

Other ecological values are at risk, too. Overly dense

stands lose much of their herbaceous understory and,

with it, the wildlife species that rely on it (Covington

2003). When dense ponderosa pine forests burn, stands

are often replaced across hundreds or thousands of acres,

causing erosion, loss of soils and wildlife habitats, and

possibly long-term changes of vegetation type (Savage

and Mast 2005).

Restoring these forests is, on the one hand, quite

simple. They are still forests. Unlike the tallgrass prairies

of the Midwest, to cite one example, most of them have

not undergone a type conversion. Although some

nonnative, invasive plants are a problem, most of these

forests are still dominated by native species. Development connected with the region’s quickly growing

population is a concern, but vast acreages of dry forest

will remain in public ownership and will likely continue

as open space in the long term. Most Americans recognize their value for lumber production, for livestock

grazing, for healthy watersheds, for recreation, for

aesthetics, and perhaps, above all, for local economies

that are increasingly based on natural amenities.

In addition, scientific understanding of the past

structure of these forests is remarkably robust. These

forests were settled relatively late in the history of the
75

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

United States. Good records—written and photographic—exist of their condition prior to alterations by

novel land-use practices in the 19th century. In addition,

the region’s dry climate has preserved a great deal of

physical evidence—such as stumps, fallen logs, living

trees, and soil phytoliths—that documents historical

forest conditions (Covington 2003, Fulé et al. 1997).

The management techniques required to return contemporary forests to conditions similar to those of the

past are also relatively well understood. More, of course,

always remains to be learned, but the effects of the two

most commonly implemented restoration treatments—

prescribed fire and mechanical thinning—have been

heavily studied for years.

Perhaps most important, restoration of these forests is quite consonant with human needs and desires.

Unhealthy dry forests are prone to enormous and dangerous crown fires that are detrimental to both ecological

and human values. Healthy ponderosa pine forests burn

frequently, but they burn at a low level of intensity that

typically does not threaten human lives or property or

such ecological values as the healthy functioning of

watersheds. In addition, research on aesthetic preferences

has shown that people tend to like the open-structured,

spacious appearance of ponderosa pine forests resembling those that preceded the Euro-American settlement

of the West (Daniel and Boster 1976, Ulrich 1993).

This fortuitous coincidence means that managers

of ponderosa pine forests can shape the landscape into

what most people want to see even as they improve its

ecological health. Managers of western landscapes with

very different fire regimes, such as lodgepole pine (Pinus

contorta Dougl. ex Loud) forests or California chaparral,

are not so fortunate. In such places, where severe, standreplacing fires are naturally evolved, managers may need

to make difficult choices between ecological integrity

and public safety.

Despite the widely agreed-upon need for restoration,

and despite the identification of enormous acreages of

dry forest in need of restoration in the interior West (GAO

1999), the pace of work done has been slow. Why is this?

Some of the most significant reasons for that failure are

matters of policy and economics. Studies have shown

that investing relatively small amounts of money in

restoration can avert the spending of much larger

amounts of money on fire suppression (Romme et al.

2003, Snider et al. 2003). But the federal government,

which manages most of these forests, has generally been

loath to invest federal funding in the precautionary

restoration of forests before they burn, and indeed has at

times taken money from fuels reduction projects that

might contribute toward restoration and used them for

fire suppression (GAO 2004).

As a result, restoration work has generally been

completed only when some grant funding is available

(as, e.g., through New Mexico’s Collaborative Forest

Restoration Program) or when private contractors are

able to remove enough products of value from the forest

(especially larger trees that can be turned into lumber) to

compensate for the time they spend in removing the

large numbers of small-diameter trees that make up the

primary fire threat but are generally unmerchantable. The

logging of larger trees almost inevitably stirs public

controversy. In many places, as in Arizona, infrastructure

is insufficient in the form of logging companies and

mills to accomplish restoration work at even a slow pace.

But the slow progress of restoration can also be

ascribed in part to shortcomings in education. The term

“restoration” has entered the language of forest management and is often used to describe any activity that reduces wildfire danger or improves forest health—even if

it does not truly restore natural conditions. As a result,

managers often fail to take steps—such as seeding native

grasses or conducting regular maintenance burns—that

contribute to holistic restoration and can lower fire

danger in the long term. Many homeowners who live

adjacent to public forest tracts, assuming that the responsibility for avoiding fire lies entirely with public

land managers, neglect simple steps that can contribute

to the reduction of fire danger on their own property.
76

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Policymakers who must try to balance manifold demands for attention and limited resources are seldom

sufficiently informed about forest issues to make wellinformed decisions. And members of the general public

may be concerned, or simply confused, about the value

of such restoration techniques as thinning and prescribed

burning, both of which do carry negative side effects.

It is for these reasons that the ERI at Northern

Arizona University (NAU) has implemented a broad

outreach program.

Different Audiences, Different Learning

Styles

A great variety of groups are engaged in forest restoration in the Southwest. In many places, restoration projects have been conducted as exercises in broad-based

collaboration that involve not only traditional land

managers but such stakeholder groups as environmentalists, industry groups, community groups, fire departments, and others (Friederici 2003, Kusel and Adler

2003, Moote 2003). In addition, restoration can be a

wide-ranging, holistic, and interdisciplinary endeavor

that engages the skills and imaginations of many people

and organizations (Light 2000). Restoration advocates

who seek to influence the debate about such projects

must recognize that members of these disparate groups

are accustomed to learning in different ways because of

their background, educational training, and professional

culture (app. 1). It is to match those different learning

styles that the ERI has generated a variety of publications and educational outreach events.

Academic Community

Members of the academic community are more likely

than members of other groups to educate themselves

through reading—in particular, they constitute the only

audience likely to spend much time reading primary

research results presented in professional journals. The

ERI has maintained a robust research program that has

resulted in numerous publications in the pages of professional journals, conference proceedings, and books.

It has also organized professional conferences for the

dissemination of new research results. In addition, ERI

faculty educate the next generation of forest researchers

by teaching undergraduate and graduate classes in

restoration through the NAU School of Forestry.

Land Managers

Typically strapped for time, land managers are unlikely

to closely read professional journals, but they do have

an interest in research results. The ERI synthesizes those

results into short, easy-to-read publications called working papers (app. 2). Each one summarizes lessons learned

by researchers and practitioners working on restoration

projects. Each includes readily usable tips for improving

project planning and implementation. In addition, the

ERI conducts workshops and classes, both in the classroom and in the field, that give practitioners a firsthand

look at forest restoration concepts, strategies, and

techniques.

Policymakers

Policymakers have even less time to devote to researching issues than land managers do. They require very

short summaries of issues requiring their attention. The

ERI has prepared a series of fact sheets, generally one

page long, on such issues as fire behavior and variable

ecological responses to different thinning treatments.

The impact of such materials has been greatly enhanced

through personal contacts with decisionmakers. Such

venues as field trips offer an excellent opportunity to

convert forest restoration from an abstract issue discussed

in black and white text to a visible management strategy

that affects how real forest stands look and interact with

their surroundings.
77

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Community Groups

Throughout the West, many community groups and other

stakeholders who are not professional land managers are

engaged in restoration efforts. Their involvement may

range from providing input into desired future conditions to active participation in the work of thinning, prescribed burning, seeding, or monitoring. Their level of

education in forest ecology may be high or low. The ERI

reaches such audiences through such publications as its

working papers and a detailed series of handbooks about

monitoring strategies and methodologies. In addition, it

maintains a large Web site that provides a wide range of

information, at varied levels of detail, about restoration

ideas and methods. The ERI staff members also actively

participate in the meetings of a number of collaborative

community-based restoration efforts in Arizona and New

Mexico.

General Public

Most restoration efforts take place on public land, and

many are set in or near wildland-urban interface areas

where many people live. Public involvement is crucial to

the success of most restoration efforts, yet public understanding of the rationales for and effects of restoration

work is often lacking. The ERI attempts to reach the

public through the publication of brochures aimed at

such groups as homeowners who live in forest settings.

In addition, it has participated in numerous festivals,

Earth Day and Firewise events, school science presentations, and other special events. Outreach to newspapers,

radio, TV, and other local, regional, and national media

is also important in reaching both the general public and

decisionmakers.

Note that tailoring a message is a matter of adjusting

form rather than content. Successful targeting of different audiences is not a matter of telling different stories,

but rather of telling the same story in different ways.

Summarizing what is known about historical fire regime

patterns, for example, requires an entirely different

vocabulary in an academic journal article and in a

newspaper article. Awareness of those differences

before setting out to write can save a great deal of time

in rewriting—or trying to rectify miscommunications—

later.

An Example of Restoration Outreach

Since the mid-1990s, the USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been conducting large-scale experimental restoration treatments near Mount Trumbull in far

northern Arizona. Scientists from the ERI, Arizona Game

and Fish Department, and other institutions have monitored the effects of those treatments on understory plant

species, wildlife, fire behavior, and other variables. Those

studies have provided great insight into the theory and

practice of forest restoration and can inform future work

if they are sufficiently publicized. How can this best be

done?

The ERI has produced a variety of outreach materials

intended to bring these results to the audiences listed

above. We have done so by producing a hierarchy of

publications that reflect the expectations of different

readers. The first level of publications, arguably the most

important, consists of peer-reviewed articles that present

primary field research to a scientific audience (summarized in Waltz et al. 2003). These articles appear in

journals such as Restoration Ecology, Forest Ecology

and Management, and others. Such articles have wide

currency in the academic community, yet those periodicals are generally not accessible to the general public

and policymakers, and often not to land managers.

To reach land managers and members of other groups

particularly interested in forest management—such as

environmental organizations and regional community

groups focused on ecology and economics—the ERI has

produced several working papers that summarize lessons

learned during the course of restoration research at

Mount Trumbull. In some cases, those lessons have been

based on experimental studies; in others, they have been
78

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

based on anecdotal observations made about operational

successes and failures. For example, measurement of the

effects of a prescribed fire that killed an unexpected

number of old trees resulted in recommendations to be

careful about burning on volcanic cinders, which were

published both in a journal read by fire professionals

and in a working paper distributed to practitioners in

the region in both print and electronic formats (Fulé et

al. 2002, Minard 2002). Full citations of the primary

literature are provided in the working papers so that

readers can look up the original, peer-reviewed research.

Other publications address readers who would not

read even a working paper. The ERI has prepared a

number of one- or two-page fact sheets that summarize

research results for time-strapped policymakers. These,

too, include citations that enable readers to understand

where the data mentioned come from.

In addition, the ERI has published a brochure for

the general public that the BLM has distributed at its

field office and at the restoration site. It provides a general overview of the work being done and explains what

viewers may see as they tour the site.

All these publications represent efforts to bring

relevant research to audiences in appropriate forms. It is

important to note, too, that this hierarchy of publications

is not confined to print only. Much of the same material

is available on our Web site, from downloadable copies

of original journal articles to short, illustrated descriptions of research sites and projects that might appeal to

the general public. The same hierarchy of outreach styles

applies in presentations as well: a presentation of research results to an academic audience at a professional

conference will differ in style from a presentation to a

community group or a group of regional decisionmakers

such as state legislators or county supervisors–even if

much of the content is the same.

The Challenges of Using Science in Policy

Moving between one audience and another, though,

presents significant challenges. Some of the thorniest

challenges in educating varied audiences about a complex land management practice such as restoration stem

from the different expectations to be found among those

audiences. Ecologists, for example, are notoriously

cognizant of the complexities of the systems they study

(Noss et al. 1997). They are acutely aware that it can take

years of study to construct even simplified models of

ecological processes; that forest dynamics may be very

different at different sites; that the effects of interannual

variability in climate (which can be severe in the Southwestern States) can easily mask the effects of restoration

treatments or any other forest management practices;

that whatever variables are under study are inevitably

affected by another set that is not being monitored. They

may be reluctant to draw inferences about other sites

from their study of one locale; they may point out that

the complexities of ecological interactions make it

difficult or impossible to draw precise cause-and-effect

conclusions from even years of study.

Yet those conclusions are exactly what land managers, policymakers, and the general public are after. All

these groups are under pressure of various sorts to show

results on the ground, especially when the issue at play

is as attention-getting and volatile as fire behavior in

public forests. Under pressure from their own constituents, both land managers and policymakers are apt to

ask scientists for precise and prescriptive advice about

what to do in the forests. Such advice is precisely what

most ecologists are most reluctant to give.

Presenting research results in a timely fashion,

and in a format easily accessible to land managers and

policymakers, is also often made difficult by the proprietary interest researchers have in their results, which are,

after all, the result of a good deal of hard work. Academic

researchers, in particular, are under consistent pressure to

publish their results in respected, peer-reviewed professional journals. Publication of results in such formats as

working papers or general-interest publications is often

either frowned upon or entirely neglected when it comes

time to review academic records for the approval of
79

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

tenure or changes in job status. Most academic institutions are simply not structured to provide quick summaries of current research results to the land managers and

other practitioners who have the greatest immediate need

for them. Yet publication in peer-reviewed journals can

take a long time, and even after publication, results may

filter only slowly—or not at all—into formats accessible

to those outside the academic community.

It is in large part because ecology is a complex

science and drawing precise conclusions from it about

management practices is so fraught with difficulty that

debates about an endless array of management issues

have come to be dominated by competing scientific

claims (Cortner 2003). The scientific basis for practicing

restoration in Southwestern ponderosa pine forests is

excellent, but advocates can often buttress widely competing ideas with findings that seem to support one

particular management practice or another. For example,

it has been well established that Southwestern ponderosa

pine forests burned often before the onset of livestock

grazing and widespread fire exclusion (Allen et al. 2002,

Covington and Moore 1994, Swetnam and Baisan 1996),

yet reputable researchers have questioned the generally

accepted methodologies that have helped lead to those

conclusions (Baker and Ehle 2001).

Ecologists, like many other scientists, are also

often reluctant to enter debates about land management

because they are understandably worried about being

misquoted or having their work taken out of context.

Scientific results are almost invariably skewed or oversimplified when they enter public discourse. Newspaper

and television accounts are rife with hyperbolic rhetoric;

it is common to hear about enormous acreages “destroyed” by fire when in fact almost all fires burn in a

mosaic of different severity levels, and when highintensity fires are in fact crucial to the health of certain

forest types (Smith 1992). Politicians and advocates of

all positions are apt to oversimplify debates about any

land management issue.

In light of this, it is incumbent on those charged with

educating any audience about such questions to be both

accurate and precise. When discussing forest fire, for

example, it is critical to point out that different forest

types have very different fire regimes. When discussing

historical reference conditions, it is vital to delimit the

discussion to the appropriate geographic area or ecosystem type. When deciding what sort of terminology is

appropriate, it is important to be very judicious in the

use of such politically loaded phrases as “old-growth

tree” or “catastrophic fire.” In general, it is vital to

carefully “translate” precise scientific terminology into

language that other audiences can readily understand.

Some simplification is generally necessary in order to

discuss ecology in a way that is meaningful to land

managers or the general public, but too much simplification is a disservice. Finding the right degree of simplification requires finesse and good judgment.

Conclusion

It is certainly possible to provide good information in

a way that makes a difference. Our goal, as interpreters

of science, should be to disseminate information so

that those who make decisions—which in a democracy should include everyone from high officials in

Washington, D.C., to professional land managers to lay

members of the public—have the best possible background for making their own decisions. The results of

those decisions may not always be what we ourselves

would have chosen, but if they are based at least in part

on good science, they will likely be far better than if they

are based on no science at all.

If ecological restoration is a matter of returning an

ecosystem to a healthier trajectory, then we might think

of science education as the practice of slowly placing

public decisionmaking on a trajectory that over time

gives more weight to good science. It’s an evolving

practice, never completed, but one that is crucial to the

future health of our lands.
80

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Literature Cited

Allen, C.D.; Savage, M.; Falk, D.A.; Suckling, K.F.;

Swetnam, T.W.; Schulke, T.; Stacey, P.B.; Morgan,

P.; Hoffman, M.; Klingel, J.T. 2002. Ecological

restoration of Southwestern ponderosa pine

ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecological

Applications. 12(5): 1418–1433.

Arno, S.F.; Fiedler, C.E. 2005. Mimicking nature’s fire:

restoring fire-prone forests in the West. Washington,

DC: Island Press. 242 p.

Baker, W.L.; Ehle, D. 2001. Uncertainty in surface-fire

history: the case of ponderosa pine forests in the

Western United States. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research. 31: 1205–1226.

Cortner, H.J. 2003. The governance environment:

linking science, citizens, and politics. In: Friederici,

P., ed. Ecological restoration of Southwestern

ponderosa pine forests. Washington, DC: Island

Press: 70–80.

Covington, W.W. 2003. The evolutionary and historical

context. In: Friederici, P., ed. Ecological restoration

of Southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Washington,

DC: Island Press: 26–47.

Covington, W.W.; Moore, M.M. 1994. Southwestern

ponderosa pine forest structure: changes since

Euro-American settlement. Journal of Forestry. 92(1):

39–47.

Daniel, T.C.; Boster, R.S. 1976. Measuring landscape

esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. Res.

Pap. RM-167. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station. 66 p.

Egan, D.; Howell, E.A. 2001. The historical ecology

handbook: a restorationist’s guide to reference

ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. 457 p.

Friederici, P. 2003. The “Flagstaff Model.” In:

Friederici, P., ed. Ecological restoration of

Southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Washington,

DC: Island Press: 7–25.

Fulé, P.Z.; Covington, W.W.; Moore, M.M. 1997.

Determining reference conditions for ecosystem

management of Southwestern ponderosa pine forests.

Ecological Applications. 7: 895–908.

Fulé, P.Z.; Verkamp, G.; Waltz, A.E.M.; Covington,

W.W. 2002. Burning under old-growth ponderosa

pine on lava soils. Fire Management Today. 62(3):

47–49.

U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO]. 1999. Western

national forests: a cohesive strategy is needed to

address catastrophic wildfire threats. GAO/RCED99–65. Washington, DC. 60 p.

U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO]. 2004. Wildfire

suppression: funding transfers cause project cancellations and delays, strained relationships, and

management disruptions. GAO-04-612. Washington,

DC. 62 p.

Jordan, W.M., III. 2003. The sunflower forest: ecological restoration and the new communion with

nature. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

256 p.

Kusel, J.; Adler, E., eds. 2003. Forest communities,

community forests. Lanham, MD: Rowman &

Littlefield. 301 p.

Landres, P.B.; Morgan, P.; Swanson, F.J. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in

managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications. 9(4): 1179–1188.

Light, A. 2000. Restoration, the value of participation,

and the risks of professionalization. In: Gobster, P.H.;

Hull, R.B., eds. Restoring nature: perspectives from

the social sciences and humanities. Washington, DC:

Island Press: 163–181.
81

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Minard, A. 2002. Protecting old trees from prescribed

fire. Working Papers in Southwestern Ponderosa Pine

Forest Restoration 3. Flagstaff, AZ: Ecological

Restoration Institute. 4 p.

Moote, A. 2003. Community-based forest restoration. In:

Friederici, P., ed. Ecological restoration of

Southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Washington,

DC: Island Press: 335–352.

Noss, R.F.; O’Connell, M.A.; Murphy, D.D. 1997. The

science of conservation planning. Washington, DC:

Island Press. 246 p.

Oelschlaeger, M. 2003. Ecological restoration as

thinking like a forest. In: Friederici, P., ed.

Ecological restoration of Southwestern ponderosa

pine forests. Washington, DC: Island Press: 81–91.

Romme, W.H.; Preston, M.; Lynch, D.L.; Kemp, P.;

Floyd, M.L.; Hanna, D.H.; Burns, S. 2003. The

Ponderosa Pine Forest Partnership: ecology,

economics, and community involvement in forest

restoration. In: Friederici, P., ed. Ecological

restoration of Southwestern ponderosa pine forests.

Washington, DC: Island Press: 99–125.

Savage, M.; Mast, J.N. 2005. How resilient are

southwestern ponderosa pine forests after intense

crown fires? Canadian Journal of Forest Reseach.

35(4): 967–977.

Smith, C. 1992. Media and apocalypse: news coverage

of the Yellowstone forest fires, Exxon Valdez oil spill,

and Loma Prieta earthquake. Westport, CT:

Greenwood Publishing Group. 213 p.

Snider, G.B.; Wood, D.B.; Daugherty, P.J. 2003.

Analysis of costs and benefits of restoration-based

hazardous fuel reduction treatments vs. no treatment:

progress report no. 1. 16 p. Unpublished report. On

file with: Dave Egan. Ecological Restoration

Institute, Flagstaff, AZ 86011.

Society for Ecological Restoration International

[SERI]. 2004. The SER international primer on

ecological restoration. Tucson, AZ. 15 p.

Swetnam, T.W.; Baisan, C.H. 1996. Historical fire

regime patterns in the Southwestern United States

since AD 1700. In Allen, C.D., ed. Fire effects in

Southwestern forests: proceedings of the second La

Mesa fire symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-286.

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station: 11–32.

Ulrich, R.S. 1993. Biophilia, biophobia, and natural

landscapes. In: Kellert, S.R.; Wilson, E.O., eds. The

biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press:

73–137.

Waltz, A.E.M.; Fulé, P.Z.; Covington, W.W.; Moore,

M.M. 2003. Diversity in ponderosa pine forest

structure following ecological restoration treatments.

Forest Science. 49(6): 885–890.
82

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Appendix 1—Principal target audiences for restoration outreach materials, and how they learn

Audience How learning happens

Scientists Peer-reviewed journals

Professional conferences

Personal contacts with other researchers

Policymakers Lobbying

Media

Constituent input

Fact sheets

Land managers Some publications

Personal experience

Professional training at national, regional, and local levels

Constituent input

General public Media: TV, radio, newspapers, Web sites,

Magazines

Events

Brochures and other publications

Word of mouth

Appendix 2—Working Papers published by the Ecological Restoration Institute

• Restoring the Uinkaret Mountains: Operational Lessons and Adaptive Management Practices

• Understory Plant Community Restoration in the Uinkaret Mountains, Arizona

• Protecting Old Trees from Prescribed Fire

• Fuels Treatments and Forest Restoration: An Analysis of Benefits

• Limiting Damage to Forest Soils During Restoration

• Butterflies as Indicators of Restoration Progress

• Establishing Reference Conditions for Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests

• Controlling Invasive Species as Part of Restoration Treatments

• Restoration of Ponderosa Pine Forests to Presettlement Conditions

• The Stand Treatment Impacts on Forest Health (STIFH) Restoration Model

• Collaboration as a Tool in Forest Restoration

• Restoring Forest Roads

• Treating Slash After Restoration Thinning

• Integrating Forest Restoration Treatments with Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat Needs

• Effects of Forest Thinning Treatments on Fire Behavior
83

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Why Good Ideas and Good Science Do Not Always Make It Into the

Marketplace

Charles R. Frihart1

Introduction

As technologists, our main goal is to develop a specific

technology and then to work on turning it into a commercial success. The problem with this strategy is that

it often leads to technical success but no real implementation, causing great frustration for the scientist. It is

unnecessary to list examples of failed technologies here,

as many of us are familiar with these from our own experience. Rather, it is more important to consider the

potential hurdles from invention to commercial success,

evaluate which ones are likely to limit or be fatal to

technology implementation, and then address them as

early in the development process as possible.

Although many articles have been published on the

subject of technology development and implementation

(Google® identified 73,300,000 citations, including

94,000 books), the information seldom seems to fit a

person’s particular program. For example, a roadmap

developed for crossing the Great Plains is unlikely to be

useful for the Rocky Mountains. Each technology has its

own unique hurdles, whether it be rivers, lakes, swamps,

or mountains; thus, each technology needs it own roadmap. By thinking through the entire process beforehand,

a good roadmap can be developed and used to avoid

ending up frustrated in a dead-end canyon or standing

precariously at the edge of a mesa.

Large organizations are able to use strategies, such

as stage-gate processes and portfolio management, to

make research more profitable by concentrating on the

technologies that offer greater payouts, higher chances

of success, and lower risk to the organization. For most

organizations, such formal processes are too cumbersome. However, the technologist can apply some of the

Abstract

Good ideas and good science are not sufficient in and

of themselves for successful commercialization of new

technology. Understanding the barriers to commercialization so that ways around, under, over, or through them

can be found is also crucial to success. Barriers can

include market needs, technology push versus market

pull, availability of a window of opportunity, economics,

and risk aversion. A good starting point is to understand

how the technology will fit in with a potential customer’s

operation. Pushing technology usually is not successful

because of customer concerns about new products and

processes; however, semitechnical education of the end

user is an effective way to build market pull. Evaluating

the economics of new technology is important not only

to comprehend the potential of the new technology, but

also to understand the most effective use of resources in

the technology development. Risk aversion on the part

of the customer often overrules the potential economic

benefits of a new technology in the decisionmaking

process. To address these issues, many corporations have

established stage-gate and portfolio-management

processes. These concepts can be used effectively even

without the establishment of a formal process. Both

successful and unsuccessful new products and new

processes are provided to illustrate these issues and the

ways to solve them.

Keywords: Barriers, economics, risk aversion,

technology push, market pull, stage-gate.

1

Project leader, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, Madison, WI

53726; e-mail: cfrihart@fs.fed.us.
84

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

thought processes that have gone into developing these

formalized methodologies in a less formal manner.

This paper does not intend to design an exact pathway but rather to list factors that should be considered

and addressed throughout technology development and

implementation. Although this author’s area of expertise

is organic chemistry, the rules are based on more general

principles and will transfer across most market segments.

Note that these comments apply more to typical manufacturing industries than to those that depend on new

products for survival.

Understanding Needs

It seems obvious that in developing a product it is important to meet the needs of the marketplace. However,

information on exactly what is needed can often be difficult to obtain for several reasons. First, technical people

are usually not directly in touch with potential end users

of the technology. Second, customers may not realize

what new technology they need. Third, although the new

technology may seem to have a market fit, it may not

actually be the best available.

The separation of technical people from end users

leads to an unclear idea of what is needed for a technology to succeed. Some routes for information transfer

are illustrated in figure 1. Every step in the transfer of

information—from the end user of the technology to

the person developing the new technology—serves as a

place where information may get filtered and distorted.

Although technical service, sales, and marketing people

are very good at what they do, they tend to think of

products from the viewpoint of current technology. In

concentrating on their job, they simply fail to record

information that is important for the development of a

successful new technology. In many cases, they may not

understand the information provided as it relates to more

sophisticated or longer term applications, and they

seldom have the background to brainstorm with customers on developing new technology. Finally, they are

rewarded for current sales and have no incentive for time

spent on sales that would not take place for 5 to 10 years.

Even if technical people can have direct contact

with users of the technology, customers may not always

know what they actually need. As packaging for pet food

and fertilizer changed from plain to printed bags, the

packaging companies encountered problems with the

adhesives for sealing the bags. They requested better

adhesives to bond the printed surfaces. In many cases,

however, the adhesives stuck very well to the ink film,

but the ink film did not adhere well to the bag. Thus,

what was needed was a better ink, not a better adhesive.

Even if we can develop seemingly suitable technology, it may still not be the right technology. Many companies developed waterborne adhesives and inks to

replace solventborne products, figuring that companies

would switch for environmental reasons. In some cases,

the waterborne systems were accepted in the marketplace, but in other cases the waterborne technology was

not a commercial success for a number of reasons. First,

few and less stringent regulations have been put into

place than once feared; thus, many operations still use

solventborne systems. Second, there has been a general

realization of the paucity of a market for environmentally friendly products that cost more or have lower

performance. Customers will not buy an inferior product

for the same price. Paper companies learned this lesson

in the recycled paper market by having to spend considerable amounts of money on additional technology and

equipment so that the recycled fiber would meet standard

paper specifications for brightness. Third, companies

found other ways to solve environmental issues. Many

printing operations continue to use solventborne inks

with collection and recycling of the volatilized solvent,

rather than trying to solve the print quality and slow

drying problems associated with waterborne inks.

Regulations have a major impact on technology

implementation. An important benefit of dealing with

potential customers early in the development of a product or process is to learn all the regulations that must be
85

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

balanced to run the business. Does the new technology

positively or negatively affect the company’s ability to

meet these regulations? This includes not only product

performance, but also air and water emissions and

disposal of byproducts.

How do we address these issues? Nothing replaces

direct contact between the person developing the technology and the potential users of the technology. If at all

possible, visit the customer’s technical staff, the plant’s

production and technical personnel, and key marketing

and business personnel. If the immediate customer’s

product is sold to another manufacturing operation, it is

equally important to visit these people in that operation

as well.

In addition, many users of new technology may be

outside the company’s current customer base. How can

relationships be built with these potential customers?

Attending meetings and conferences is crucial for

cultivating relationships with technical people in other

companies. However, it is also important to attend

meetings that are attended by users of the technology.

If you are trying to promote a wood adhesive, note that

more adhesive users are likely to be present at a wood

products meeting than at an adhesives meeting; in addition, these meetings are important for finding out the

limitations of current products and discovering new

products.

Leveraging can take place by looking outside your

immediate field. Union Camp developed a gel candle

business because technical personnel in the Bush Boake

Allen Division that made fragrances worked together

with technical personnel in the Chemical Products

Division that made gellants from fatty acids. Together

they made a unique product that was presented as a concept to the specialty products industry and was commercially implemented.

Figure 1—Information transfer between technical developer, customer, and end user is complicated. Problems flow back through the system quickly and with great emphasis. Needs are less

likely to flow back through the system because of filters.
86

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Aspects to Implementing New Technology

Market Pull Versus Technology Push

An important aspect of marketing new products is understanding the difference between technology push and

market pull. Assume that we have developed a wonderful

new adhesive technology for stronger engineered lumber.

The standard model is to promote the technology to an

adhesive company. If this company decides the technology is interesting, then it will need to convince an

engineered wood producer to develop a product using

the new adhesive. If the engineered wood producer

decides to market the new bonded lumber, then its sales

team will have to convince a builder to use it. Each step

of the technology push involves convincing technical,

sales/marketing, and business people in each company,

and the developer of the adhesive technology generally

has control over only the first step of the chain.

On the other hand, if you work with a major builder

to show the economic advantage of a new engineered

lumber, you are using market pull. When the builder

asks the supplier for the improved engineered lumber,

you can bet that this project will get priority with the

engineered lumber producer, as well as with the adhesive

supplier.

Because we are technical people, our emphasis is

almost always on technology push, rather than market

pull. The problem is that this route is often like pushing

a rock up a steep hill; we are likely to be run over if we

are not always pushing hard. With enough hard work we

may convince the technical personnel at another company of the advantage of this technology, but generally

these people have the least influence on product direction. The sales and marketing personnel are the most

influential, and production personnel are second. Technical push can work if you are providing a product or

process that falls within a company’s current business

strategy for new products. If the company has decided to

make a composite that has no formaldehyde emissions,

then the technology for a formaldehyde-free adhesive is

more likely to be readily accepted.

On the other hand, market pull uses other people, in

particular the customers of your target company, to help

get the rock up the hill. Thus, you first convince the users

of composite panels that the new adhesive will provide

them an advantage. They will then pressure the composite manufacturer to use the adhesive technology, and the

composite manufacturer will in turn put pressure on the

adhesive manufacturer to implement the technology. As

mentioned before, it is important not only to understand

your customer’s operations but to also understand your

customer’s customer’s operations. Plus, the contacts that

you develop in assessing market needs can be used later

in developing market pull.

Technology push can work, but it is better if it can

be combined with market pull. The benefit of working

both routes can be illustrated in Ikea’s interest in environmentally friendly wood products. Knowing Ikea’s

interest, a panel producer could approach their adhesive

supplier and ask for a low- or non-formaldehyde-emitting

panel product. The adhesive supplier may indicate that it

can supply a low-formaldehyde product that meets the

German E1 emission class or the more recent Japanese

standard, but it may also indicate that there are no suitable adhesives for panel products that have no formaldehyde emissions. Thus, if an adhesive can be developed

with no formaldehyde, then promoting this technology

with both the adhesive manufacturer and the panel

producer would greatly increase the likelihood that the

technology would be accepted.

Window of Opportunity

Window of opportunity is the time in which the market

is open for new technology. The window opens as a

result of changes in regulations, economic forces, or

consumer interests. The window generally closes when

technology is implemented to meet the new market

demand, the altered economic forces are no longer present, or consumer interest changes to something else.

Concerns about formaldehyde emissions led to regulations that limited emissions. Changes in adhesive
87

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

formulation then led to fulfillment of the regulations and

closed the opportunity for other adhesives. Surging gas

prices led to increased sales of more efficient automobiles and trucks, but the demand for these vehicles

decreased as gas prices declined. The success of environmentally friendly products often depends on consumer

interest at the time.

The appropriate technology generally needs to be

created prior to the need because technology development takes too long to fit into a window of opportunity.

Therefore, it is important that new technology development is accompanied by foresight. After agreeing to limit

the use of wood treated with chromated copper arsenate

(CCA), companies needed fully developed technology

that wood treaters could use immediately. Prior to this

agreement, however, it was difficult to convince managers, marketers, and sales staff of the need to develop

alternative treatments. As soon as the window opens,

the technical person must have the alternative ready

to go. Market anticipation is a valuable skill for any

organization.

On the other hand, technology developed before a

window of opportunity opens often has to sit until the

window opens. No matter how hard you push, alternatives that are costly or do not improve performance are

not likely to be used as long as the current product is

acceptable in the marketplace. Thus, in the case of

treated wood, companies had known about alternative

products such as copper azole or alkaline copper quat

(ACQ) for a long time, but these products could not

compete against CCA-treated wood on the basis of price

or performance. The reduced use of CCA-treated wood

opened the window for other treatments to enter the

marketplace.

Of all the factors affecting new product success, the

window of opportunity is the hardest to plan for because

it involves some event or series of events over which the

developer of the technology generally has little control.

The technical person has to realize beforehand that a

window may open and have the product ready for

implementation in a short time. Again, market anticipation is important for success. On the other hand, educating the customer about the benefits of a new technology

can sometimes open a new window of opportunity or

accelerate the opening of a window.

Not every technology is highly controlled by a

window of opportunity. After all, we continue to await a

better mousetrap because mice and rats continue to

invade our living quarters. The current traps work, but if

a better trap comes along it will no doubt succeed, as

long as it offers some distinct advantage to the customer.

Economics

It seems obvious that economics is an important issue

for implementing new technology. However, economics

often gets deferred until late in the development process

because technical people are often not trained in economic calculations and generally have insufficient information to calculate the detailed economics of a new

process. Nonetheless, it is important to do the best

possible economic evaluation from the beginning of

technology development and to refine the evaluation as

process development continues and more information is

gathered. The primary reason for this evaluation is that it

makes little sense to develop a process or product for

which the economics are highly unfavorable. Secondary

reasons are that economics can indicate which areas of

research are most important and can be useful in promoting the technology. Without a good idea of the economics, it is difficult to promote any technology and

impossible to prioritize research and development

projects.

How do you conduct an economic assessment?

The four main factors to consider are the net worth of

the material, production labor costs, indirect costs, and

capital costs.

Net worth of material—

The net worth of a material is the easiest of these factors

to estimate and can initially be used to select programs
88

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

with a chance of success compared to those that are

clearly uneconomical. The simplest calculation involves

the price per one unit of the product minus the cost of

the raw materials required to produce that unit of product. This figure is then adjusted by the value of the

byproducts (either credit or debit). For uncertain values,

use your best estimate and see what happens to profitability when this estimate is varied by a 10 percent, 20 percent, and 30 percent increase or decrease. If the cost of the

product is more than the expected sales price or profitable

only by taking the most optimistic case, your efforts are

probably better spent elsewhere. These calculations can

also help focus the development process on the issues

that will provide the greatest reward. How critical is it

to improve product yield, or to find value for the

byproducts, or to find a lower cost raw material? Many

processes suffer from the low or negative (pay for disposal) value of the byproducts. The fermentation of corn

to produce ethanol can leave a byproduct of lesser value

than that of the raw material, which drags down the

overall economics of the process. The net worth value

of the material needs to be very positive because the

production, indirect, and capital costs need to be subtracted, as illustrated in figure 2.

Production labor costs—

Production labor costs can be the most significant part of

total production costs because for most companies, labor

costs are the largest expense and represent the greatest

cost difference between production in developed and

underdeveloped countries. Most companies are willing to

spend capital money to reduce labor costs, as evidenced

by the purchase of equipment ranging from mechanical

tree harvesters to automated production lines. Other

production costs such as utilities are often less critical,

but they can be a significant factor if, for example, a large

amount of water is evaporated as in the drying of wood or

manufacture of paper.

Indirect costs—

Indirect costs are usually dominated by management,

sales and marketing costs, and, in some cases, by research.

If the new technology fits within the customer’s current

operation and markets, it has little or no effect on these

costs. On the other hand, new product lines in new

markets require additional staff and result in higher

indirect costs to the organization.

Capitol costs—

Capital costs can be a significant factor. The way to keep

these costs at a minimum is to develop technology that

fits within the organization’s current processes, both for

the equipment used and for maintenance of the current

production rate. Any new equipment will need to pay for

itself in a short timeframe and will have to compete

against other capital expenditures within the company.

Any decrease in production rate is doubly detrimental

because less total product is created and consequently

less total output per worker. On the other hand, an increase in production rate is of interest to both management and production. A brand new process for pulping

wood can have many advantages but it often requires new

equipment, which means scrapping much of the invested

capital currently in use.

Gathering of economic information—

How is economic information gathered? Information can

be obtained from many sources, depending on the specific new product or process. The best source is to work

closely with a potential customer and its customer(s), who

often provide general price information once you have

developed rapport. Many government agencies, including extension services, and local business development

groups have information on economics or can provide

contacts. In some cases, multiclient studies are available.

Companies are in the business to make money.

Why would they want to waste their time and money on

processes or products that will not improve their profits?

The less you understand about the economics of the
89

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

technology that you are promoting, the lower your

creditability with the potential user of the technology.

The additional benefit of starting an economic evaluation as early in the process as possible is that it can help

direct the research to improve the economics of the

technology.

Risk aversion

Risk aversion is the least appreciated aspect in implementing new technology and is often the overriding

reason that new technologies are not implemented. After

investing a lot of time and money, what happens if the

technology does not meet the target expectations? Will

major customers be lost because the new product does

not meet expectations or because the customer does not

foresee higher value from the new product? Has plant

output been slowed because of scale-up issues or equipment problems related to the new product? Will the

variability of the feed or production equipment lead to

low-quality products or low product yields? And so forth.

Companies are always concerned about losing a

major customer if the new technology does not live up

to expectations. Consequently, sales and marketing staff

tend to stick to the status quo. They often do not understand the technical benefits for the company and for their

customers. Education is crucial—even to the point of

dragging company reps into the lab or plant so that they

can appreciate the new technology. A fair amount of time

and effort is sometimes required to develop a way of

communicating the technology to nontechnical people,

but it is better to have these people working with you

rather than against you. We had developed a way to reduce the perception of odor in one of our products, but

the technology was stalled within our company owing to

management objections. This was solved by getting the

marketing manager involved with the project from the

scientific perspective. A blind odor evaluation by the

marketing manager convinced him of the value of the

technology and led to its presentation to our customers,

ultimately leading to commercial implementation.

Figure 2—The economics of introducing new products: profit diminishes with each additional factor.

To be viable, it is best to minimize the cost of each step. If capital expenses are significant, it could be

worth spending efforts on reducing capital costs at a higher production cost for a new product until the

technology is proven.
90

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Like sales and marketing personnel, production

people generally like the status quo. They know how

to deal with the current process, even if it has problems.

They are concerned about new technology because they

will need to learn how to make adjustments when things

go wrong, as they often do. By understanding how things

are done in a plant, you can try to direct new technology

so that it requires the least change from existing operations. It is also important to develop processes that are

the most robust, that is, the least influenced by changes

in materials and conditions.

Risk aversion is an extremely important issue in the

implementation of new technology. The best way to deal

with it is to understand why people are afraid of change

and then to make sure that you minimize the effect by

educating all the right people and making your process

as robust as possible.

Ways to Implement New Technology

Stage-Gate Methodology

The discussion thus far has been on specific areas of

concern that need to be considered in developing and

implementing new technology. Many large corporations

have put into place formal systems to evaluate where to

spend research dollars. These systems have been called

by various names, but stage-gate seems most appropriate.

This system places evaluation gates at set places between

the initial idea and final implementation, as shown in

figure 3.2 At each gate, the technology receives greater

scrutiny to correspond to the greater commitment of

corporate dollars and staff power to the technology.

These processes are highly formalized and require too

much time to be useful for many organizations. On the

other hand, not using this methodology leads to research

and development time spent on projects that have little

chance of success. Even if a formalized process is not

2

Cooper, R.G. 1993. Winning at new products. Accelerating the

process from idea to launch. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley

Publishing Company.

used, the more knowledge that people have about technology assessment, the better they are at planning and

developing new technology.

The benefits of looking ahead at future stages are

to determine the hurdles before they become a major

problem and to learn, before investing a lot of resources,

if a hurdle is likely to kill a project. An example of a

project killer is trying to use a natural material that is

available only in low volumes for a large-volume market.

A similar problem is using a natural material that has

high variability in its composition, which could lead to

major difficulties in converting the material into a consistent end product.

Another advantage of looking at all steps of new

technology implementation is that it becomes evident

what resources and additional expertise are needed.

Using the expertise of others is important to efficient

technology development. If at some point technology

development requires a process engineer or a marketing

person, then why not involve such staff early on so that

they can provide insight into critical parameters? It is

generally better to address these issues in the beginning

stages rather than modify the process because a critical

hurdle cannot be solved by the current technology.

Portfolio Management

Large companies go beyond stage-gate methodology to portfolio development to allocate resources

between short- and long-term programs and to decide

upon individual projects within these programs. It is

beneficial for some of the same concepts to be used

within smaller organizations. One of the greatest challenges in research is to determine when an individual

program should be terminated as a result of some

hurdle—technical or business—that cannot be overcome or would require too many resources to overcome.

Evaluating a variety of research programs allows you to

determine if there are better places for developmental

efforts.
91

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Concluding Remarks

The successful implementation of technology depends

on many factors other than the quality of the technology

itself. It is important to understand these other factors

early in the development process to give the new technology the best chance of success. First, it is necessary to

obtain a clear understanding of the customer’s real needs,

not just perceived needs, by close interaction with both

the direct customer and that customer’s customer.

Second, by working with the end user as well as the direct customer, you can exert an influence on both technology push and market pull.

Even if you maintain close interaction with customers, many hurdles can stall technical implementation.

For many technologies, there is a window of opportunity

when new technology is most likely to be implemented

as a result of changes in regulations, outside economic

forces, or market demand. Evaluating the economics of

the technology is too important to postpone until the

technology is developed. Early economic evaluation

with refinement as more information is developed can be

a strong asset in determining the most critical issues in

technology development and in presenting the technology to potential customers. However, even technologies

with good market needs and economic potential can

have their implementation stalled by risk aversion.

Stage-gate evaluation and portfolio management are

formal processes for evaluating where to put research

resources. Although these methods may be too formal

for most uses, the thought processes used in developing

them can help to ensure that key hurdles are considered

early in the process and that ways to overcome the

hurdles are incorporated into development.

Figure 3—Stage-gate evaluation: each gate serves as place to filter out projects with less chance

of success.
92

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Technology transfer is not something that should be

considered after a technology has been developed. It

should be integrated in the development process itself.

You are unlikely to be successful at chess if you think of

the opening moves and the checkmate as disparate

entities rather than integral parts of a complete plan.

Why should technology development and transfer be

any different?

Acknowledgments

Too many people were instrumental in my years at Union

Camp for me to thank each individually. I do want to

single out Bill Trice, Robert Lazar, Tony Montgomery,

and Mark Pavlin for their large contribution to my

understanding of taking technology from the laboratory

bench to commercialization.
93

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Photomonitoring

Frederick Hall1

where the camera site and meter board are permanently

marked. It has particular value in showing how a treatment has modified vegetation or soil conditions (Hall

2001, 2002).

Components of Photomonitoring

Photomonitoring depends on the precise replication of

repeat photography at selected photopoints. Precise

replication requires (1) a map to find the sampling

location; (2) a map of the photomonitoring layout; and

(3) documentation of the monitoring system to include

purpose, camera type, season, repeat schedule, sampling

system, and equipment.

Replication requires use of a meter board to mark

the topic of interest. The meter board is a board 1 m tall

marked in decimeter increments. It is used to orient the

camera by placing the “1M” on the top of the board in

the center of the original and all repeat images. It is also

used to focus the camera for maximum depth of field, and

it can provide a measured reference for grid analysis of

change. Figure 1 contains samples of meter boards.

The Distance Factor

An essential characteristic of replicable photomonitoring

is unchanging distance from camera to meter board

between repeat photographs at a given photopoint (Hall

2001). Figures 1 and 2 illustrate this requirement. In

figure 1, both camera lens focal length and distance to

the meter board are adjusted to make the meter board the

same size in each photograph: 50 mm at 10 m distance

and 35 mm at 7 m distance. Each of the items is outlined

on clear plastic overlays as follows: “50-mm @ 10m”

outlined in a solid line and “35-mm @ 7m” outlined in a

dotted line. Note differences in backgrounds even

though the meter boards are the same size.

Abstract

Photographic documentation (photomonitoring) of research studies can be used to illustrate measured changes

and to introduce results to people unfamiliar with the

topic. Photomonitoring means repeat photography at

selected photopoints under strict methodological constraints in order to document and quantify change.

Photomonitoring grid analysis provides a numeric index

of change over time. Accurate photo replication requires

the use of a meter board at the photopoint to identify the

topic, orient repeat photographs, and provide a measured

reference for grid analysis of change. Most importantly,

the distance from camera to meter board at the photopoint must remain the same for all repeat photographs,

so both camera location and meter board must be

permanently marked at each photopoint. Effects of

different distances and camera lens focal lengths are

illustrated, and use of a grid for measuring change is

shown.

Keywords: Monitoring, photography, change.

Introduction

Photomonitoring is a method of repeat photography that

provides a numeric index of vegetation at a specific site.

The index is not an estimate of vegetation profile area,

but, rather a method of numerically documenting

change. Repeat photography uses a system of photopoints to illustrate what a measurement sampling system

is characterizing, or to document change in soil or vegetation over time. A photopoint is a permanent location

1

Consultant with PlantEcol NW, LLC, PMB 454, 1521 N Jantzen,

Portland, OR 97217.
94

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Figure 1—Different camera-to-meter-board distances and different camera focal lengths.
95

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Figure 2 compares the object outlines. The outlines

from both photographs in figure 1 are overlaid to evaluate the effects of camera focal length and distance from

camera to meter board on size and location of objects.

The overlays for “35-mm @ 7m” and “50-mm @ 10m”

show different sizes and locations of the same objects

in front of, and behind, the meter boards even though

the meter boards are the same size. If the distance from

camera to meter board changes from one photograph to

another, the size and location of objects changes from

one image to the next. This is because geometric angles

from camera to objects change as distance changes. If

objects in photographs are to be measured for change,

distance from camera to meter board must remain the

same.

To keep the same distance, both the camera location

and the meter board must be permanently marked with

steel stakes or fence posts for each photopoint. Steel is

preferred because it is easily detected by any inexpensive metal detector.

Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate that although distance

from camera to meter board must remain constant, camera focal length is a correctable factor. Fortunately, the

same camera lens focal length is not required for subsequent photographs. This is a highly desirable feature

because many inexpensive digital cameras have zoom

lenses that cannot be set to a specific focal length (Hall

2001, 2002). Images in figure 3 appear different because

focal lengths differed (35 mm and 50 mm).

Figure 3 demonstrates the differences between camera lens focal length of 50 mm and 35 mm at 10 m distance from camera to the meter board. Objects in each

photograph are, again, outlined on clear plastic overlays and adjusted in size to the 50 mm lens at 10 m as

follows: (1) the meter board in the “50-mm @ 10m”

photograph is measured at 20 mm and the meter board in

the “35-mm @ 10m” photograph is measured at 14 mm;

(2) the percentage of enlargement for 35 mm is calculated as: 20 ÷ 14 = 143 percent. The 35 mm at 10 m distance outline is enlarged 143 percent and compared to

the 50 mm at 10 m outline in figure 4.

Figure 2—Object comparison, different camera-to-meter-board distances.
96

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Figure 3—Same camera-to-meter-board distance, different camera focal lengths.
97

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

In figure 4, the 35-mm image is enlarged to match

the height of the meter board in the 50-mm image (143

percent). Overlaying the enlarged 35-mm outline on the

50-mm outline shows little difference in object size or

location. Note the difference in size between “35-mm

@ 10m” and “50-mm @ 10m” outlines. The items in

each photograph are about the same size and occupy the

same location, demonstrating the importance of distance

and the ability to correct for focal length. Camera focal

length may differ without affecting analysis of photographic items when images are adjusted to a common

size meter board.

A set distance from camera to meter board across

all photopoints is not required. Distance may range from

5 m to 10 m depending upon the purpose of the monitoring. However, the meter board should be at least 25 percent of the image height to provide adequate precision

of measurement when using grid analysis. For example, a

meter board set 10 m distant is about 25 percent of image

height when using a camera with a 50mm lens. For

digital cameras with zoom lenses, zoom the lens so the

meter board is at least 25 percent of the image height.

Measurement of Change

Change can be shown by using repeat photographs and

by using a grid analysis. Figures 5 through 7 illustrate

use of a meter board for measuring change in shrub profile area. Figure 5 documents shrub profiles in 1981 prior

to beavers (Castor canadensis) moving into the area and

again 15 years later in 1996 after they departed. Beaver

harvested willow stems for dam construction and forage

from 1983 to 1993.

In figure 5, clear plastic is laid over the photographs

and shrub profiles are outlined. Each overlay is a data

sheet and must have all information entered to identify

the outlines. (Note that the date on the data sheet is the

Figure 4—Object comparison, same camera-to-meter-board distance.
98

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Figure 5—Pole camp shrub profile photographs.
99

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Figure 6—Pole camp shrub profile analysis grids.
100

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

photograph date, not when the outline was drawn.) The

meter board is outlined on its left side and top, then each

visible decimeter line is marked and the decimeter

number written on the overlay. Finally, each shrub is

carefully outlined and given either a letter or number

identification.

The next step is size adjustment of a clear plastic

analysis grid. The grid has its own meter board imprinted

on it. Adjust the grid meter board to exactly match the

outline meter board. Figure 6 shows the grid overlaid on

the outlined meter boards. Note the overlaid numbers

marking decimeters on the meter board. Outline overlays

are placed under analysis grids for counting shrub profile

intersects on and within each outline.

Figure 7—Pole camp shrub index 1974 through 1998.

When an outline crosses a grid intersect, such as in

the lower photo between shrubs 17 and 19 (intersect AA18), count the intersect for the shrub in front (number

17). Also in the lower photo, count intersects along the

grid edge, such as the five intersects in shrub 25 on line

YY. Tally the number of intersects for each shrub and

total the number of intersects for the photograph. Please

note that this is an index and not an estimate of shrub

profile area even though, in this example, each grid is

1 dm2 at the meter board. A grid box at the meter board

10 m distant is 1 dm2, whereas at 20 m it covers 4 dm2.

Figure 7 plots the results of 24 years of shrub intersects (Hall 2001). The procedure used in figures 5 and 6

was followed for each year from 1974 through 1998 and
101

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

plotted by using a smoothing spine regression as shown

in figure 7. One observer made all 24 measurements.

Intersect values range from a low of 230 to a high of 445.

No intrinsic value can be placed on the intersect values.

They simply document change. Beaver presence is

shown above the dates

This kind of measurement is not possible without

strict adherence to unchanging distance between camera

and meter board for repeat photographs. Comparing

figures 2 and 4 confirms the requirement.

English Equivalents

1 millimeter (mm) = 0.039 inch

1 decimeter (dm) = 3.9 inch

1 meter (m) = 3.28 feet

1 square decimeter (dm2) = 0.12 square yard

Literature Cited

Hall, F.C. 2001. Ground based photographic monitoring.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-503. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 340 p.

Hall, F.C. 2002. Photo point monitoring handbook: Part

A—Field procedure; Part B—Concepts and analysis.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-526. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 134 p.
102

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726
103

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Diffusion of Innovation Concepts for Evaluating Adoption of Practice

William G. Hubbard1

conducted to quantify this change or adoption. Numbers

obtained from these quantifiable measures are then

aggregated across all participants in the event to get

the percentage of participants who adopted a practice,

changed behavior, etc. Results such as 60 percent of

program participants adopted practice X or 80 percent

increased their knowledge on a subject matter are common in evaluation literature today. Although some impacts such as those related to change in knowledge,

skill, or behavior may be measured adequately by these

methods, the adoption of a particular practice owing to

an educational intervention can be more difficult to

measure. The purpose of this paper is to point out the

highlights of over 50 years of research on diffusion of

innovations and adoption of practice and to illustrate the

potential for use in program evaluation.

Getting information and science to individuals in a

manner that can be interpreted and internalized for use is

only one part of the process. If the adoption of a desired

practice (or the cessation of an undesirable practice) is

the preferred result that will be measured, then several

factors must be taken into account. These are primarily

related to the delay in time between the educational

event and the implementation of the practice, factors

that relate to the individual’s abilities and capacities to

implement the practice, and factors beyond the control

of the individual that can affect their adoption of the

practice. Extensionists and others who comprehend this

and incorporate it into their programming will find this

useful. Professionals with responsibilities in this field

need to have a keen understanding of these other factors

and how they might influence the actual adoption of

practice to understand their effectiveness.

Two examples may help to illustrate this concept.

First, from a general educational perspective, consider a

Abstract

Educators and technology transfer specialists have an

innate interest in understanding the result of their efforts.

What is the change in behavior of program participants

from a particular educational intervention? What is the

change in knowledge? What is the change in skill level?

And, ultimately, was there an adoption of practice?

Although every educator aims for 100 percent adoption

of practice from program participants, in reality, several

factors keep this from happening. Some factors influence

adoption from a positive perspective, and some influence

adoption negatively. These factors can be grouped into

those that relate to the educator or educational program

and those that do not. The purpose of this paper is to

summarize these factors and to explain how they influence adoption of practice and why educators should be

knowledgeable about them. In addition, this paper will

outline how diffusion of innovation concepts can be

used to more adequately address program evaluation

concerns. Educators and technologists can develop more

sound programs and ultimately affect more program

participants if they are cognizant of these factors and

their influences.

Keywords: Adoption of practice, diffusion of innovation, technology transfer, evaluation.

Introduction and Background

For most people involved in natural resource education and technology transfer, success is measured by

a change in behavior, an improvement in a skill, an

increase in knowledge, or an adoption of practice.

Surveys, tests, observations, and experiments are often

1 Extension forester, Cooperative Extension Service–Southern Region,

4-402 Forest Resources Building, University of Georgia, Athens, GA

30602; Tel: 706-340-5070; e-mail: whubbard@uga.edu.
104

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

vocational teacher who provides training in a specialized

area to a group of students. She surveys the group 2 years

later and finds out that only 50 percent of the students

found jobs in the field of training. Upon further investigation she finds out that there are a number of factors,

in addition to the training she provided, that affected

the “success” rate of her pupils. She found some trainees

had motivational issues, some had resource limitations

(no car to get to work, no money to buy nice clothes for

interviews, etc.), some interviewed poorly, and some had

no interviews owing to lack of potential job availability.

She used the results of her informal study to revamp her

efforts. The next time she taught the course, she provided

limited counseling (and actually conducted a voluntary

motivational test), held a job fair, and even coached her

students on how to interview. In addition, she offered to

provide transportation vouchers to anyone who had a

legitimate job interview. Granted, this went way beyond

the call of duty, but it illustrates two important points:

that there are factors in addition to education that

influence the outcomes, and that we, as educators can

do something about them.

Another example in the natural resources field

further illustrates this point. A shortcourse on forest

management was conducted via satellite program in

the Southern United States. Information on a variety of

topics was presented to several thousand landowners. A

followup survey was conducted to see which practices

that had been promoted in the program might have been

adopted (e.g., tree planting, estate planning, food-plot

planting, etc). In addition, questions were posed to the

participants that focused on the reasons for adopting or

not adopting the practice. From these surveys, the program developers not only obtained an idea of the level

of adoption but obtained an idea as to the factors that

affected adoption. Some of the reasons included the fact

that the shortcourse speakers were too difficult to understand, the practice would have required resources that the

owner did not have at the time, and the owner hadn’t had

the time to implement the practice. From this information, the program producers were able to design future

programs that were more effective at meeting the needs

of participants.

Reinventing Rogers—The Adoption of

Diffusion Theories and Opportunities for

Use in Program Evaluation

What are the factors that can influence the adoption of a

practice, and, more importantly how can educators and

technology transfer specialists work within this framework to be more effective? To answer the first question,

we start with a set of theories that was developed over 50

years ago by social scientists in the agricultural fields

(Beal and Bohlen 1957, Beal et al. 1962). These scientists were specifically interested in factors that affected

the motivation of farmers to adopt agricultural practices.

Soon after, one social scientist in particular, Dr. Everett

Rogers, compiled these observations and began making

many of his own (Rogers 1963). He searched the literature, conducted surveys and experiments, and came up

with a series of posits designed to explain the concepts

related to the diffusion of innovations and adoption of

practice. In addition to several other concepts related to

diffusion of innovation, he found that the adoption of

practice was affected by three major categories of factors:

those relating to the individual, those relating to the

social system, and those relating to the practice itself. In

addition to these attributes, there are external factors and

factors relating to the educational experience that can

influence the adoption of practice. Each of these categories is discussed in more detail below.

Individual Attributes That Influence Adoption of

Practice

One of the more common concepts that Rogers posited

was the idea that people are different and that they will

use the information provided to them in different ways.

He grouped society into five categories, which include
105

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority,

and laggards (Rogers 2003). Many students of communication, education, and marketing are fairly familiar with

the bell-shaped curve (fig. 1) depicting the relative

percentage of each category in the population. Understanding that we have innovators and early adopters

and who they are is important for educators. Although

innovators aren’t necessarily the greatest communicators

and leaders, they are an important part of the diffusion

process because they are more willing to take a risk on a

new practice or idea. Once the early adopters are keyed

into any successes and failures then their adoption or

rejection of a practice begins to spread throughout the

system more rapidly. This is depicted in the S-shaped

curve showing the typical rate of adoption of a new

practice (see fig. 2).

There are other characteristics that relate to the nature of the individual; some are innovative and others

aren’t. Characteristics such as age, education, and availability of disposable income also affect a person’s willingness and ability to adopt a new practice that they’ve

been exposed to. An educator that understands these

factors can also develop programs or modify delivery

systems to better meet the needs of their participants.

Attributes of the Practice That Affect Adoption of

Practice

The concept of perceived attributes is based on assumptions that relate to the practice’s perceived complexity,

compatibility, trialability, relative advantage, and

observability (Rogers 2003). These five characteristics

of a practice often influence the degree to which a

practice is adopted. Each of these is discussed

Complexity—

Forests and natural resources are complex systems. Understanding these systems and applying practices to them

can be difficult and challenging. The degree to which the

concept can be fully explained and understood affects

what practices are adopted by participants. Some of the

weight rests on the ability of the instructor and some on

the inherent complexity of the proposed practice. The

Figure 1—Bell-shaped graph depicting levels of adopters (from

Rogers 2003).

Figure 2—S-Shaped curve depicting the adoption of technology

over time (from Rogers 2003).
106

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

former concept will be discussed in more detail shortly.

Conversely, if the practice is relatively easy to understand, then the chance that the practice is adopted is

higher. Programs that incorporate a step-by-step or howto approach are more successful at getting people to

adopt practices than those that are more theory or concept based.

Compatibility—

How compatible is the proposed practice with the current

philosophies and practices of the individual? A simple

example of this might be teaching reforestation practices

to a forest owner who already has a young stand of trees

growing. This owner has no immediate need for this information so will most likely retain little to nothing.

Another example might be promoting the use of chemicals to a forest owner who prefers not to use them. Compatibility issues arise for a variety of reasons and can also

be the result of poor communication if the instructor does

not adequately explain how a practice may fit into the

owner’s management strategy. In any case, the degree to

which a proposed practice is compatible is important for

educators to understand. Programs that are developed

with these concepts in mind will show more successful

results in the long run.

Trialability—

If a proposed practice can be experimented with or

adapted to a program participant’s individual needs,

then the chance that the practice will be adopted is increased. This is because risk can be managed through

testing the practice first before wholesale adoption.

Although the overall investment might be greater, the

fact that the program participant does not have to “put

all of his or her eggs in one basket” leads to the chance

that the practice will be adopted more easily.

Relative advantage—

Most participants attend programs, learn new things,

and adopt new practices because they are interested in

improving something. Perhaps it is the stewardship and

sustainability of their resource. Perhaps it is the potential

for an increase in income or a decrease in expenses

related to their property. In any case, the degree to which

the practice has the potential to improve some aspect of

the program participant’s life or livelihood influences the

degree to which the practice is adopted.

Observability—

Finally, how observable are the results? Can one readily

see the results of the application? If results are visible

and apparent and can be attributed to the practice, then

its chance of being adopted is greater than if it isn’t

visible. This is one reason why a practice such as the creation of an estate plan is difficult to get adopted by so

many people. The results just aren’t visible enough for

program participants to readily adopt. Demonstration forests and field days are valuable because they demonstrate

what the practice looks like for the potential adopter.

Social System Factors

Most of us, forest owners included, live and operate in a

web of life. One of the fundamental difficulties of technology transfer is the fact that our program participants

are inherently different (Rogers 2002). The networks we

establish, the communication we have with individuals

and the media, our personal friendships, our mentors,

experts, etc. all have a bearing on our motivation to

adopt a practice. If we are inclined to join an association

where a certain practice is considered taboo, then our

chances of adopting that practice are more than likely

reduced. If, on the other hand, the association not only

supports it but can provide technical or even financial

assistance, then the chances are increased. The availability of social system support mechanisms has been found

to be a determining force in whether adoption of practice

is undertaken (Baldwin and Haymond 1994).

Other Factors

In addition to these factors, there are other, external

factors that affect the adoption of practice. These may
107

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

include for example, the current market or political

situation. For example, forest owners will probably elect

to wait on a timber harvest if prices are expected to stay

low for an extended period. However, if a sudden need

for resources arises, and mature timber can be harvested,

then an owner may have no choice but to undertake the

practice. An example of a policy that affects a forest

owner’s decision to implement a practice might be

federal tax law.

Factors Relating to the Educational Program

In recent years, educators have become more interested

in the influence that they may have on the adoption of

practice. Factors that have been examined include program participant’s perception of the instructor’s knowledge of a subject; participant’s level of trust in the

instructor(s); and participant’s perception of whether

program objectives were defined early enough and were

adequately met. In addition, educators and others are

interested in the relative impacts of traditional and

emerging teaching technologies such as distance

education, coached planning, and others.

These factors of the educator and the educational

program are of particular interest to those in the technology transfer field because they are the factors that we can

most directly control. For example, how do we as educators come across to our audience? Do we seem knowledgeable? Arrogant? Disinterested? Do these factors have

an affect on the success of our program? In our promotional materials, did we adequately state the purpose of

the program? Did our agenda stray from meeting stated

program objectives? Were there things left out of the

program that should have been included to better

encourage the adoption of practice? These questions

and others need to be asked if we are to develop programs that result in change.

Implications for Natural Resource

Technology Transfer and Extension

Evaluation studies of technology transfer programs

typically involve surveys to measure the change in

behavior or adoption of practice. These surveys are

usually fairly basic and simply query whether a behavior

is changed or a practice is adopted. If educators are truly

interested in what happens following an educational program, then knowledge concerning the factors that affect

these changes in behavior or adoption of practice should

be acquired as well. By understanding why behavior is

changed or a practice is adopted, or, perhaps more importantly, why behavior or practices are not changed,

the educator can be in a better position to affect change.

There exists an opportunity to develop theoretical

adoption models and test them empirically. In these

models, the dependent variable is adoption of practice

and the independent variables might be a host of critical

factors that are believed to affect adoption. Some of these

critical factors have been described in the sections

above; others might be drawn up on a case-by-case basis.

In the health field for example, Cervero and Rottet

(1984) created an instrument designed to empirically test

an adoption of practice model. Specifically the study’s

objective was to analyze the impact of a training program on employee performance. A 51-item survey

instrument was designed, tested for validity, and implemented. Data collection included the review of charts,

interviews with participants and supervisors, and observation. Results indicate that the framework’s predictive

power ranges from modest to highly explanatory;

between 39 and 81 percent of the variance of the dependent variables could be explained. This suggests that this

design and framework could be useful in other fields

including natural resources.

Although every technology transfer effort cannot

be designed and tested in the manner described above,

insight from a few studies in our field should provide

valuable insight. Studies that look at the factors that influence behavior change and practice adoption can shed
108

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

light into the overall effectiveness of our efforts and the

efforts of others who similarly desire to affect changes to

our natural resources through technology transfer.

Literature Cited

Baldwin, S.B.; Haymond, J.L. 1994. A systems approach

to communication behavior among scientists, foresters, and NIPF landowners. Southern Journal of

Applied Forestry. 18(4): 175–180.

Beal, G.M.; Bohlen, J.M. 1957. The diffusion process.

Ames, IA: Iowa State College Department of

Sociology. 6 p.

Beal, G.M.; Bohlen, J.M.; Anderson, M. 1962. How farm

people accept new ideas. Ames, IA: Cooperative

Extension Service, Iowa State University. 12 p.

Cervero, R.M.; Rottet, S. 1984. Analyzing the

effectiveness of continuing professional educational:

an exploratory study. Adult Education Quarterly.

34(3): 135–146.

Rogers, E.M. 1963. The adoption process: Part I

[Electronic version]. Journal of Extension. 1(1):

16–22.

Rogers, E.M. 2002. The nature of technology transfer.

Science Communication. 23(3): 323.

Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New

York: Free Press. 576 p.
109

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

North American Perspective on Successful Strategies in Extension

and Technology Transfer

James E. Johnson,1 Eric R. Norland,2 and Janean H. Creighton3

Allow opportunities for feedback from learners to

extensionists (Canada 100 percent, United States 94 percent). The learner-centered strategy most often not used

was Use of farmer-to-farmer (forest owner-to-forest

owner) approaches in which the trainers are paid a fee

to provide educational services to their peers (Canada

86 percent, United States 75 percent). The extensionistcentered strategy most often used was Extensionists

build trust with learners (Canada 90 percent, United

States 88 percent). Whereas that most often not used was

Extensionists receive training and licensing (Canada

71 percent, United States 17 percent). One strategy associated with the educational approach received 100 percent responses from both Canada and the United States:

Deliver practical and up-to-date information. Whereas

the strategy most often not used was Identify and engage

under-served audiences in extension programs,

(Canada 57 percent, United States 33 percent). Key

barriers to the adoption of additional successful strategies include lack of funds and staff, time to test and

implement the strategies, and lack of training opportunities (mainly in Canada).

Keywords: Extension forestry, technology transfer,

forest owners, best practices in extension.

Introduction

The forests of North America are under increasing pressure to provide a wide array of goods and services to the

growing population. In the United States, the forests in

private ownership are increasingly providing these goods

and services, whereas in Canada the government-owned

forests are paramount in this regard. Examples of these

goods and services include products such as timber for

Abstract

Improved natural resource management to achieve

sustainability is a key objective of both domestic and

international extension programs. As such, there are

common strategies that have been tried and tested

throughout the world, some of them quite successfully.

During 2003, the International Union of Forest Research

Organizations (IUFRO) Extension Working Party hosted

a conference, in Troutdale, Oregon, entitled “Building

Capacity Through Collaboration.” The conference featured 35 published papers from 11 countries. A review of

the 35 papers revealed 119 “successful strategies” that

were further condensed into 45 strategies in three key

areas: strategies associated with learners (16), strategies

associated with extensionists (7), and strategies associated with educational approaches (22). During fall 2004,

the IUFRO Extension Working Party was surveyed, by

using a printed and mailed survey, to determine the

degree of use of these strategies and barriers to further

use. Responses from Canada (18 percent) and the United

States (44 percent) are summarized here. Canadian responses were mainly from nongovernmental organizations (57 percent), whereas U.S. responses were mainly

from cooperative extension services (86 percent). The

learner-centered strategy most commonly used was

1

Professor of forestry and associate dean of outreach, Virginia Tech,

College of Natural Resources, 324 Cheatham Hall, Blacksburg, VA

24061; Tel: 540-231-7679; e-mail: jej@vt.edu.

2

National program leader, Forest Resource Management, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education,

and Extension Service, Mail Stop 2210, 1400 Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, DC 20250.

3

Assistant professor of human dimensions, University of Arkansas,

School of Forest Resources, P.O. Box 3468, Monticello, AR 71656.
110

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

pulp, saw logs, composite wood products, and fuel;

nonwood products such as mushrooms, berries,

medicinals, and floral materials; and ecological services

such as wildlife habitat, clean water, viewscapes, wetlands, and endangered species protection. Furthermore,

these goods and services are expected to be produced in

a sustainable manner, to ensure a strong future supply.

Informal education and technical assistance services to

landowners are needed to assist with the management

of private forests and improve the level of management planning and on-the-ground practices. Commonly

referred to as extension, these educational services are

offered through formal Cooperative Extension Services

and state agencies in the United States, and through

nongovernmental organizations and government-funded

partnerships in Canada.

Growing out of traditional agricultural extension

(van Den Ban and Hawkins 1996), forestry extension

has emerged as a critical service to improve the management of forests and the livelihoods of forest owners

and forest-dependent communities (FAO 1986, Sim and

Hilmi 1987). As part of this development, the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO)

authorized the development of an Extension Working

Party in 1991, which began work in 1994 (Johnson

2003). The objectives of the working party follows:

• Serve as a forum for information exchange among

extension forestry workers worldwide.

• Promote the concept of extension through the

transfer of knowledge and technology to improve

the lives of people.

• Improve the quality, quantity, and effectiveness of

extension programs worldwide.

• Advance the quality and impact of research on

extension methodologies.

In keeping with these objectives, the Extension

Working Party hosted an international symposium in

Troutdale, Oregon, in 2003, entitled “Building Capacity

Through Collaboration.” As part of this symposium, 35

papers were presented from 11 countries, each focused

on a specific project or collection of methodologies that

has led to program success. The objective of this paper is

to discuss the use of a collection of successful strategies,

as determined from these papers, by extension professionals in the United States and Canada.

Methods

Initially, the intent was to develop a set of “best practices for forestry extension”; however, the concept of

best practices implies that the practices have been tested

and replicated over time and with different audiences.

Instead, the 35 papers presented at the 2003 symposium

were reviewed, and a set of 119 “successful strategies”

compiled. Through a process of combining like items,

the original set was reduced to 45 strategies in three

categories: strategies associated with learners (16),

strategies associated with extensionists (7), and strategies

associated with the educational approach (22). The

emphasis on successful strategies indicates that the

strategy was featured in the paper, and in some way led

to success of the program.

Following the symposium, in August of 2004, an

advisory group of representatives from the following

agencies convened in Washington, D.C., to provide

additional advice and guidance to the project: InterAmerican Development Bank; U.S. Agency for International Development; Peace Corps; USDA Cooperative

State Research, Education, and Extension Service; USDA

Forest Service—International Programs; Virginia Tech

(1862 Land Grant University); and Tennessee State

University (1890 Land Grant University). This group

reviewed the process used to develop the categories

and developed the concept of “successful strategies” as

opposed to “best practices.”

From November 2004 through March 2005, a written

survey was administered by mail to the 500 members

of the IUFRO Extension Working Party, representing 70

countries. A followup mail survey was also sent to
111

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

nonrespondents, and the response time extended in an

attempt to increase the response rate. In addition to

demographic data, the survey used a five-point Likert

scale to ascertain the degree of use of the 45 successful

strategies previously identified. In this paper only the responses from the United States and Canada will be considered. Responses from other countries will be analyzed

and published in the future. Respondents were provided

with the list of 45 strategies and then asked to rank

whether they use the strategy often or sometimes, do not

use the strategy but would like to, do not use the strategy

because it does not apply, or have no opinion on the use

of the strategy.

Results and Discussion

Responses from the United States totaled 53 out of a

sample population of 121 (44 percent usable responses),

and from Canada 7 usable responses were received from

a sample population of 38 (18 percent usable response

rate). Admittedly, this response rate from Canada is low,

and any interpretations made should be considered as

preliminary. Demographic data are presented in tables 1

and 2. The survey respondents were predominantly

male (95 percent in the United States and 71 percent

in Canada). Mean age of respondents was 41 for the

Canadians and 50 for the Americans. The Canadians had,

on average, 10 years of extension experience, whereas

the Americans had 18 years. Most of the U.S. respondents

worked for universities (86 percent, most likely within

the Cooperative Extension system of the Land Grant

Universities), whereas the Canadians worked mostly for

nongovernmental organizations (57 percent).

Strategies Associated With Learners

Of the 16 strategies associated with learners, the top four

that are most commonly used and the four that are least

used are presented in table 3. Allowing for learner feedback, surveying the target audience for needs, focusing

initial efforts on innovators and early adopters, and

using peer-to-peer learning all scored highly with both

the Canadian and American respondents. All are basic

tenets of the concept of adult education, and recognize

that the learners have much experience and knowledge

to bring to the educational experience (Seevers et al.

1997). Focusing early efforts on the innovators and early

adopters, about 16 percent of the population, has long

been touted as an excellent extension strategy (Rogers

1983). The majority of the population learn from these

often successful opinion leaders, and if the practice

appears beneficial, follow along soon after.

Learner-centered strategies that are not widely used

are also presented in table 3. Approaches in which the

learners become instructors and are paid for their services

was not used much either in Canada or the United States

(86 percent did not use in Canada and 75 percent did not

use in the United States). Furthermore, only 14 percent

of Canadian and 28 percent of American respondents

indicated they would be interested in trying this approach. This strategy was cited as being successful by

Table 1—Demographic responses by Canadian and

American extensionists

Canada United States

(n = 7) (n = 53)

Gender

Male (percent) 71 95

Female (percent) 29 5

Mean age (years) 41 50

Mean years experience 10 18

Table 2—Employment profile of responding Canadian

and American extensionists

Employed by Canada United States

Percent

Government agency 28 6

Research Institute 1 4

School/college/university 14 86

Nongovernmental org. 57 0

Consultant 0 2
112

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Table 3A—Learner-centered strategies used often or sometimes by

Canadian and American extensionists

Strategy Canada United States

Percent

Allow opportunities for feedback from

learners to extensionists 100 94

Survey target audience to determine needs,

wants, desires, and barriers to adoption. 100 90

Focus initial extension efforts on innovators

and early adopters. 100 84

Facilitate peer-to-peer learning opportunities

within the target audience. 85 83

Table 3B—Learner-centered strategies not often used by Canadian and

American extensionists

Strategy Canada United States

Percent

Use farmer-to-farmer (forest owner-to-forest

owner) approaches in which the trainers are

paid to provide educational services to their peers. 86 75

Emphasize human welfare in educational programs. 86 28

Hire learners to work on projects to build

trust and spend project funds locally. 71 64

Formalize the roles and responsibilities of

partners through memorandums of understanding. 43 45

Kaudia et al. (2003) for a Demand-Driven Forestry Extension Project in Kenya, in which the participants are

involved in determining the educational content. In

addition to providing income to farmers who share their

knowledge, this project sought to build human capacity.

North American extensionists cited a series of barriers to

adopting this approach, including availability of funds

to support the approach, lack of manpower, and uncertainty of how to implement the program. A contrast

between Canadian and American responses occurred

with the strategy “emphasize human welfare in educational programs.” Whereas 86 percent of Canadian

respondents indicated that they do not employ this

strategy, the corresponding value for the Americans was

28 percent. Possibly this difference is reflected in the

long-standing American tradition of building the family

and community unit through adult education, rather than

on merely transferring technology. Additionally, Canadians have a strong government-based social support

system, and possibly Canadians interpreted this strategy

as one not related to extension programs.

Strategies Associated With Extensionists

The strategies associated with extensionists used most

often or not used are presented in table 4. Extensionists

building trust with the learners, involving learners in

project planning, and establishing rapport with the

learners were all used widely by both Canadian and

American extensionists. Again, these are all key elements

associated with successful adult education programs
113

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

(Seevers et al. 1997). Interestingly, 90 percent of the

responding American extensionists indicated that they

were members of a professional society, whereas the

comparable figure for Canadians was 57 percent. In the

2003 symposium, Adams (2003) highlighted the diverse

benefits of extensionists working within the structure of

a professional society or association. In the United

States, there now exists an organization known as the

Association of Natural Resource Extension Professionals

(ANREP), which serves as a professional development

association for extensionists. A similar organization does

not exist in Canada.

Another difference exists between the Canadian and

American responses in regard to strategies not commonly

used (table 4). Whereas 71 percent of the Canadian respondents indicated that they do not receive training,

licensing, or leadership development, only 11 to 17 percent of American extensionists indicated that they do not

receive these professional development opportunities.

These strategies scored highest as “not used” by the

American extensionists. Barriers cited by the Canadians

include the following: lack of a critical mass of extensionists within various organizations, lack of funding

to support such activities, and lack of training opportunities. This may also be related to the minimal involvement in professional societies, which often serve as

vehicles for professional development. In the United

States, in-service training for extensionists is widely

recognized as essential for a modern educational workforce (USDA 1994). Canadians also recognize the

importance of a trained and effective extension workforce. According to Bunnell (1988): “People—trained,

knowledgeable, and empathetic—are the prime ingredient in developing and maintaining an effective extension

program. Institutional and administrative support is

needed for the people who are engaged in extension

activities.” Despite the lack of training and professional

development opportunities available to the Canadian

respondents, the use of successful strategies in program

Table 4A—Responses of Canadian and American extensionists to strategies

associated with extensionists used often or sometimes

Strategy Canada United States

Percent

Extensionists build trust with learners. 90 88

Extensionists involve learners in project planning. 85 84

Extensionists establish rapport with landowners,

particularly if extensionists are strangers. 87 71

Extensionists are members of a professional

society or association. 57 90

Table 4B—Responses of Canadian and American extensionists to strategies

associated with extensionists that are not used

Strategy Canada United States

Percent

Extensionists receive training and licensing. 71 17

Extensionists receive in-service training and

leadership development. 71 11
114

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

development is similar to use in the United States.

Perhaps similarities in culture and educational methods

between the two countries create more commonalities

than differences.

Strategies Associated With Educational Approach

The strategies associated with the educational approach

most commonly used and not used by Canadian and

American extensionists are listed in table 5. The strategies most commonly used would be considered key

elements of most adult education programs, and there

were no observable differences between responses from

Canada and the United States. For example, delivering

practical and current information, ensuring the information meets the audience’s needs, utilizing available

information technology, adapting programs to local conditions, etc. are all well-known and accepted strategies

(Seevers et al. 1997). Of more recent interest is the idea

of maintaining close collaboration between research and

extension. In the U.S. cooperative extension system, a

network of extension specialists located at Land Grant

universities ensures this close tie. Many of the specialists

are also cofunded by extension and research, and perform dual functions (Hamilton and Biles 1998). Ninetyeight percent of American respondents maintain a

research tie to their educational programs, while 85 percent of the Canadian respondents indicated the same for

their programs.

Strategies that were not used as often include engaging underserved audiences, involving learners in the

instruction, using principles of total quality management

(TQM), using prototype extension models, and using onfarm or in-forest research or demonstration plots (table

5). Barriers to the use of these strategies were identified

as lack of money and resources, lack of manpower, lack

of training, and internal resistance to concepts such as

Table 5A—Responses of Canadian and American extensionists to strategies

associated with educational approaches often or sometimes used

Strategy Canada United States

Percent

Deliver practical and up-to-date information. 100 100

Ensure educational programs meet the needs

of the target audience. 100 96

Utilize information technology when appropriate–

World Wide Web, satellite. 100 96

Adapt educational programs to local conditions. 100 96

Encourage learner participation through personal

invitations. 100 89

Target educational programs to the needs of learners. 100 91

Maintain a close collaboration between research

and extension. 85 98

Use a variety of teaching methods to accommodate

different learning styles. 85 96
115

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Table 5B—Responses of Canadian and American extensionists to strategies

associated with educational approaches that are not often used

Strategy Canada United States

Percent

Identify and engage underserved audiences in

extension programs. 57 33

Involve learners in the delivery of educational

programs. 57 17

Employ principles of quality management for

educational programs. 43 34

Develop and use a prototype extension model that

can be modified based on initial feedback. 28 35

Use on-farm or in-forest applied research plots

for demonstration purposes where appropriate. 56 24

TQM and to use of prototype programming models.

Many respondents cited barriers to reaching underserved audiences, including lack of time, uncertainty

with how to identify some audiences, difficulties with

getting underserved audiences to participate in educational programs, cultural barriers, and a lack of minority

extensionists to reach the underserved audiences. The

greatest difference between Canadian and American

responses occurred with the strategy of involving

learners in the delivery of educational programs. In

Canada, 57 percent of the respondents indicated that

they did not use this strategy, whereas the comparable

figure in the United States was 17 percent. However, all

of the Canadian respondents indicated that they would

like to use this strategy.

Conclusions

Forestry extension programs in the United States and

Canada are active and evolving. In the United States,

extension services are provided most commonly through

the nationwide cooperative extension system, whereas

in Canada, nongovernmental organizations and partnerships such as FORREX are most common (Morford

2003). In general, extensionists in North America base

their educational programs on a needs analysis, allow for

feedback, support peer-to-peer learning, deliver practical

and current information, adapt methods to local conditions, and are at the forefront of information technology.

Extensionists have difficulty identifying and targeting

underserved audiences, and typically do not hire learners

to work as instructors, although many found this strategy

to be intriguing. Some other concepts, such as the use of

TQM techniques applied to extension programming and

the use of prototype programming models for testing

purposes, were also not widely adopted either in Canada

or the United States.

Numerous barriers to adopting some of these strategies were identified by both U.S. and Canadian respondents. The usual barriers, lack of time, money, and

staffing were cited frequently by respondents from both

countries. Other barriers were also identified, such as an

internal resistance to some concepts, and a lack of

minority extensionists capable of reaching underserved

audiences.
116

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Literature Cited

Adams, P.W. 2003. Extension foresters in professional

organizations: natural synergy yields diverse benefits. In: Building capacity through collaboration.

Proceedings of the 6th IUFRO Extension Working

Party symposium. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State

University: 140–145.

Bunnell, P. 1988. Guidelines for forestry extension.

Canada–British Columbia Forest Resource Development Agreement FRDA Report 046. Vancouver, BC:

British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 20 p.

Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]. 1986. Forestry extension organization. FAO Forestry Paper 66.

Rome, Italy. 167 p.

Hamilton, R.A.; Biles, L.E. 1998. Forestry extension in

the United States. In: Johnson, J.E., ed. Extension

forestry: bridging the gap between research and

application. Proceedings of the 3rd IUFRO extension

working party symposium. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State University: 57–66.

Johnson, J.E. 2003. Coordinating international

extension efforts in forestry: the IUFRO Extension

Working Party. In: Nielson, E.J., ed. Bridging the gap

between forestry research and practice—the role of

the communicator. Proceedings of the Nordic Forum

on Forestry Communication. Hoersholm, Denmark:

Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute:

16–18.

Kaudia, A.A.; Mukolwe, M.O.; Ongugo, P. 2003.

Reaching out to rural communities? Experience with

decentralized demand-driven forestry extension in

Kenya. In: Building capacity through collaboration.

Proceedings of the 6th IUFRO extension working

party symposium. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State

University: 222–231.

Morford, S. 2003. The NGO model forestry extension

in western Canada. In: Building capacity through

collaboration. Proceedings of the 6th IUFRO extension working party symposium. Corvallis, OR:

Oregon State University: 232–241.

Rogers, E.M. 1983. Diffusion of innovations. 3rd ed. New

York: The Free Press. 453 p.

Seevers, B.; Graham, D.; Gamon, J.; Conklin, N. 1997.

Education through cooperative extension. Albany,

NY: Delmar Publishers. 288 p.

Sim, D.; Hilmi, H.A. 1987. Forestry extension methods.

FAO Forestry Paper 80. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 155 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. 1994. Shaping

the future–a strategic plan for natural resources and

environmental management education. USDA Extension Service and Land-Grant University Cooperative Extension Services. Washington, DC. 38 p.

Van den Ban, A.W.; Hawkins, H.S. 1996. Agricultural

extension. 2nd ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell

Science Ltd. 294 p.
117

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Science Writing—A Promising Way to Intensify Knowledge Transfer

in Forest Sciences

few other scientists gained further trainings in writing,

Web editing and Web publishing to better transfer

scientific information through the Internet. As a result,

many new Web sites were developed attracting the

attention of special target audiences as well as the

public.

Between 1999 and 2004, the numbers of articles

written by WSL scientists showed a strong rise in all the

publication categories, and the citations in the press also

have increased. This result exemplifies how a research

institute today has to do duel duty to optimize the communication of its findings. It has to both communicate

with practitioners and publish its findings on an international scale to receive reputation from abroad. Science

writing does not just enlarge the number of articles in the

media. It also supports the process of creating new publications such as newsletters, technical bulletins, factsheets, Web sites, and e-learning tools. All together, it is

an effective way of transferring science findings to a wide

audience and attracting attention.

Keywords: Science writing, knowledge transfer,

forestry, journalism, further education.

Research Institutes—Treasury of

Knowledge

Forest research has a long tradition in Central Europe

because this region is the cradle of European sustainable

forestry. In 1787, the first forestry school was founded

at Dillenburg, Germany, and, in addition to teaching,

re-search activities were soon started. Since the 1870s,

when the first research institutions were founded, forest research has accumulated an enormous amount of

forest-related knowledge in Germany, Austria, and

Reinhard Lässig1

Abstract

Since 1787, when the first forestry school was founded

in Germany and forest research started, a huge amount

of scientific knowledge has been accumulated in Central

Europe. Unfortunately, compared to the publication activity on forest-related topics worldwide, the number of

articles written by German-speaking authors was rather

small for a long time. Since 1990, however, the number

of articles in both peer-reviewed journals and technical

magazines has been significantly increasing. This is particularly true for the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest,

Snow and Landscape Research (WSL). When governmental funding decreased, it became more relevant to transfer

its findings to target groups and the public.

To intensify the institute’s ability in science writing,

i.e., writing about scientific issues and topics for a general audience, one of its scientists took a training to

become a science writer. As a result, he managed to publish articles on scientific topics in regional and national

newspapers. To gain more experience in journalism, he

took further training at the editorial department of a

daily newspaper. This, again, helped him publish more

articles and get in touch with journalists through the

electronic media.

In cooperation with the public relations manager

of the institute, the science writer helped enable the

institute’s scientists to publish more articles written in

a popular way. For example, he started to pre-edit

manuscripts his colleagues from science had written.

This helped increase the number of manuscripts published in technical magazines. The science writer and a

1

Forest scientist and science writer at the Swiss Federal Institute for

Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Zuercherstrasse 111,

CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland; e-mail: reinhard.laessig@wsl.ch.
118

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Switzerland.2 Long-term investigation in all major forest

types has a long tradition, producing extensive data

on tree and forest development. Although it is almost

impossible to summarize and analyze all the research

projects from these institutes, it can be assumed that

most of them have gathered a huge amount of scientific

results.

Based on an analysis of the publication statistics

of 1992, 1997, and 2002 in Web of science (oral message

from A. Kempf, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow

and Landscape Research [WSL]), it can be assumed that

of the total accumulation of knowledge related to forests

and forestry, only the rudiments have been published.

Compared to the publication activity on these topics

worldwide, the number of papers published in peerreviewed journals with at least one author from a

German-speaking country involved is fairly small.

Between 1992 and 2002, the number of papers dealing

with forest-related topics increased from 0.95 to 1.17

million (+ 23 percent) worldwide. At the same time, the

number of papers written by authors from the Germanspeaking countries rose from 160 to 283 papers (+ 77

percent). In the German-speaking countries, there was—

and possibly still is—a huge backlog in publishing on

the international scale. Compared to the large number

of publications worldwide, the scientific potential for

German-speaking scientists to publish in peer-reviewed

journals must be assessed as still enormous. The publishing backlog is probably due to the fact that until about

1990, many of these institutes did not have a strong

obligation to justify their scientific excellence or even

their existence by their publication intensity.

Besides the very few peer-reviewed articles in

scientific journals, most of the research findings—at least

if they were relevant to forest managers—were published

2

Forest research in the German-speaking countries is being done at

three governmental research institutes, at nine state research institutes,

which, as a rule, belong to the forest service in the federal states of

Germany, and at six universities. The term “research institutes,” being

used in this article, summarizes them all together.

in the series issued by the research institutes themselves

or in forestry magazines written in German. Although

there are no reliable data available on the number of

articles that have been published in German, it seems

that this number has only slightly increased between

1992 and 2002. There might be two reasons for this: (1)

In the 1980s science started investigating “forest dieback,” which resulted in a high number of projects and,

subsequently, in publications as well. After this bump,

this topic became less attractive, and in the 1990s, the

number of publications decreased. (2) At the same time,

both the number of forest-related journals as well as

their issues decreased slightly. Some of them have disappeared since, and some merged together. In contrast to

this trend, technology transfer to practitioners became

more attractive during the last years, which resulted in a

rise in the number of popular papers.

In Switzerland, governmental funding decreased in

the early 1990s. It became more and more relevant for

research institutes like the WSL to present its scientific

success, transfer its findings to its customers and stakeholders, and justify its activities as well. Besides other

criteria, both the number of publications in peerreviewed journals and the amount of citations are, today,

the main indicators ranking scientific institutions among

others in the world. Therefore, as at other research institutes in the German-speaking countries, more and more

scientists at WSL published their results and conclusions

in peer-reviewed journals as well (fig. 1).

In the mid 1990s, WSL learned how some research

stations of the USDA Forest Service communicated their

findings. Referring to the stations’ experiences, it was

obvious that WSL should be able to both publish more

intensively as well as better focus on special target

groups (i.e., foresters, conservationists, governmental

decisionmakers, politicians). But as the only federal research institute in its field, WSL has to also consider its

obligation to justify its activities nationwide because

of its mandate given by the government or by parliament. The WSL, in general, has to meet two needs at

the same time: it has to publish its research findings
119

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

in peer-reviewed journals, and it has to transfer them on

the national scale. Switzerland is a multilingual country,

which implies that sometimes there is an obligation to

publish in more than just one language. In times of shortage of federal funding, the research institute has to be

more transparent and, therefore, it was a must to increase

its knowledge transfer.

Popularizing Research Findings

There are several ways to increase the transfer of scientific findings to a wider audience. A research institute

could organize, for example, open houses, workshops,

excursions, exhibitions, fairs, or adventure trails.

Another possibility is to make its Web site more customer-friendly, i.e., by putting more and easily understandable information on it. An example of the latter is

the highly educational Web site http://whyfiles.org that

successfully makes scientific knowledge and context as

easy to understand as possible.

In terms of intensifying knowledge transfer, the

question arose whether it is feasible for a research institution to popularize research findings itself? Referring to

this, one big problem is that a great number of scientists

are not educated in transferring their knowledge in a

popularized way. Some of them were employed when

scientific expertise was the one and only attribute to

get a job and not popularizing or communicating the

findings. But most of the transfer activities mentioned

above require special skills in writing and communication. Therefore, scientists need either support from

specialists, who were trained in science writing, i.e.

writing about scientific issues and topics for a general

audience, journalism, or public relations, or some of

them must be trained in at least one of these fields.

Like the journalists at the newspapers, science

writers, editors, and public relation specialists know

how to “translate” research findings into a language that

is easily understood. Usually they also know a method to

transfer findings to special target groups in a popularized

way. Therefore, science writers are able to improve at

least some of the products a research station is going to

publish and, additionally, to write and publish articles

Figure 1—Annual number of publications by authors of the Swiss Federal Institute for

Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, 1999-2004.
120

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

that directly appeal to the public. A science writer inhouse provides the big advantage of their insight in

up-to-date research topics and processes.

During the last 20 years, it has become quite popular in Switzerland to report on science issues. Most of

the larger newspapers regularly produce science pages.

Besides the staff at the publishing houses, there are

many freelancers specialized in science reporting. Since

the early 1990s, the number of science writers in both

research and development as well as communication

departments has also increased because of a great need

to inform special target groups about industrial products,

science, environment, or public administration in an

appropriate way.

As part of this inquisitiveness on environmental

issues, both the practitioners and the public wanted to

know more about forest-related topics. Therefore, and

because of the above-mentioned obligation to justify

its activities, WSL, in 1998, intentionally intensified its

knowledge transfer. Another aim was to be cited in daily

and weekly published newspapers and magazines more

often. An increased competence in science writing was

one contribution to reach this aim.

Effective Capacity Building

Considering the above-mentioned goals, it was necessary

to optimize writing conditions, processes, and products.

To increase knowledge transfer, the question arose

whether it was most effective to employ professional

science writers and editors at WSL or whether an experienced scientist should be trained to become a science

writer. The director of the institute supported the lastmentioned alternative because he had a scientist inhouse who had a strong interest in knowledge transfer.

The training process and the impact of this procedure on

the institute’s publishing performance will be described

briefly.

Becoming a Science Writer

There are several ways to become a science writer. The

education possibilities in journalism starting right after

school or following a bachelor or master degree in sciences is not discussed here. Yet there are other ways to

get trained differing in length and focus. Most of the

courses are provided either by public institutions like

universities and colleges of higher education (one to

two semesters), by public or commercial adult education centers, or by publishing houses (journalist

schools).

In 1999, WSL promoted the science writer’s efforts

to take a part-time education in journalism at the State

Adult Education Centre of Zurich. To take an 18-month

side-line education, some experience in publishing

articles in the press was required. This arrangement

enabled the science writer to continue most of his daily

business as usual. The course provided knowledge in

writing, editing, journalistic styling, freelancing, photography, Internet research, media sciences, and media

law. As an important part of the training, in order to get

as much practice as possible, each participant had to

constructively criticize the manuscripts of the others.

Another part of the training was to produce a company

magazine together, including planning, writing, editing,

and shooting photos.

Part of the educational program, it was required

publishing at least one article in a national or regional

newspaper during that time of the course. All the participants achieved this goal; some using a consumer’s topic,

some a social issue, and others a scientific one. Another

important outcome of this education was the conceptual

work and the launching of a forest science newsletter in

winter 1999. This newsletter is still being published

quarterly, and it is a visible success of what the institute

had invested in the science writer’s further education.
121

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

During the course, his writing and editing skills increased, which enabled him to get articles published

in newspapers with which he had not previously had

contacts.

Learning to Understand the Editorial Staff

As in other fields of work, it is a whole new ballgame to

put newly claimed knowledge into practice successfully.

To better understand the making of science pages, practical experiences within a newspaper’s editorial office

are needed. It is important to understand the strategic

approach of a newspaper, how it is functioning, and

how the editorial staff is realizing new project ideas.

Fortunately the science writer got an opportunity to

participate in a 6-week practical training at the science

editorial department of one of the largest daily newspapers in Switzerland.

During this most instructive time, the science writer

learned that the scientific content of an article is not the

only important indicator for the editorial staff to decide

whether or not an article is going to be published. First,

an article gets examined for its news content, and then

checked for its public concern. These are the leading factors for the editor in compiling the daily news. In other

words, the more a popularized article on science shows

how the reader possibly benefits from the new findings,

the higher the interest of an editor to publish it. Another

indicator within this process is how often a global topic

like forest, animals, climate, etc. was covered by the

newspaper itself during the last days or even weeks, or

whether other newspapers or magazines have recently

reported about the same topic. In the planning process

for the next day’s issue, topics from science always have

to compete with up-to-date news (politics, economics,

crime, sports, culture, lifestyle). Stories on research are

often considered to be second rate because they usually

address a small, if ambitious, target audience. To reach

different target groups, the science writer has to focus his

activities on different media (press, in-house productions, Internet).

Rising to New Challenges

After getting a number of articles published in different

newspapers, the science writer wrote a 2-page article on

“Storm damage, climate change and bark beetles in

forests” and submitted it (Lässig and Wermelinger

2002) to the science editorial staff of the Frankfurter

Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, one of the leading

Sunday newspapers in Germany. The scientific expertise,

the complexity of the topic, the popularly written text,

and the quality of pictures and graphs made a successful

combination of science knowledge and customerfriendly reading. One year later the science writer

contacted journalists of Swiss TV’s science magazine.

Together with three researchers, he managed to produce

an 8-minute video, “Natural forests and scientific

collaboration with Russia.” During the following years,

more assignments followed, one as a guest co-editor of a

special issue of a German science magazine on “Storms”

(Müller-Schärer et al. 2003), one as a chief editor of a

brochure on “Scientific cooperation with Eastern

Europe” (Lässig et al. 2005; fig. 2), and one as a science

reporter for a Swiss Sunday newspaper. These examples

show clearly that the media is accepting of a science

writer, embedded in a net of specialized researchers, even

though he works for a governmental research institution.

It is important to note that unbiased writing or reporting

is a prerequisite for cooperating with the media.

Writing and Editing—Opening Up of New Vistas

Publishing popularized articles on scientific topics in the

newspapers is a very efficient way of transferring research

findings to a broad audience. With an effort of between a

few days and 1 week of writing, one can reach an audience of some hundred-thousand people. At the same

time, it is not always easy to publish comparatively dry

and unbiased facts from science in a world of political

and economical changes.
122

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Concerning knowledge transfer, a research institute

with around 500 employees doubtlessly accumulates

an awful lot of information, which could easily be

transferred by even more than one science writer. As

proved by some of the research stations of the USDA Forest Service, up to four science writers and one or more

editors are successfully optimizing their publishing

activities.

Concerning WSL, the science writer, in addition to

the public relations manager, enabled the institute and

its scientists to publish more articles written in a popularized way. After the first editions of the forest science

newsletter from WSL, the science writer also started to

pre-edit his colleagues’ manuscripts before they were

submitted to a forest magazine. Editing the drafts helped

increase the quality of the manuscripts as well as the

number of manuscripts being accepted by the magazine.

Moreover, the magazines’ chief editor does not correct

the scientists’ manuscripts as intensively as he did years

ago. The greater number of articles has two major effects:

(1) the scientists are able to transfer more of their findings to landowners, foresters, and other practitioners; and

(2) the institute’s research will be perceived by a wider

audience. But editing is a most time-consuming work.

To limit the increasing time of editing, it could be

worthwhile offering writing training for scientists.

Science writing is, also, increasingly used in the

process of making Web pages. During the last decade,

it got quite popular to present science findings on the

Internet. But the writing of good Web texts is a challenging job. The wording must be short and compact, but still

correct and complete, and the layout should be pleasing

to the eye as it clearly and effectively transfers the content. It is a real challenge to express the complexity of

research projects and findings in a few paragraphs in a

way that develops interest in a specific subject. It is

highly recommended to motivate a few scientists at an

institute’s location to be trained in Web editing. The

science writer took one training course, again, at the

State Adult Education Center of Zurich. After finishing

this course he now is better able to support and develop

the content of new customer-friendly Web sites, Web

pages, and Web projects. Concerning the making of Web

pages, another important skill is layout. The WSL, today,

employs three professional part-time Web publishers and

one technical Web developer to develop sophisticated

computer applications. Together with science writers and

Web publishers from the research stations in Freising/

Munich and Freiburg, Germany, and Vienna, Austria, a

team of WSL specialists recently developed the Web site

www.waldwissen.net that provides up-to-date knowledge

from forest science to practitioners in the alpine region.

Just a First Step

During recent years, it became obvious that it was

worthwhile for WSL to train scientists in different fields

of science writing, Web editing, and Web publishing to

improve knowledge transfer as well as public perception.

Figure 2—Clipping from Lässig et al. 2005.
123

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Besides the increase in the number of the peer-reviewed

papers between 1999 and 2004 (+ 57 percent), there was

also an increase in the number of nonreviewed papers of

132 percent. The number of books, proceedings, and

newspaper articles, however, increased just slightly (fig.

1). All publication categories together showed a rise of

68 percent, and the citations in the press, which could

just partly be influenced by the institute, rose by 37

percent (fig. 3). It would be incorrect to argue that these

increases came just because of the involvement of

science writers and public relation specialists. It was,

indeed, the scientists themselves who understood that it

was particularly rewarding for them, and for the institute,

to publish articles in diversified media, including the

peer-reviewed journals, to reach a wider target audience.

However, roughly 5 to 10 percent of the total number of

publications was published in collaboration with either

the science writer or the public relations specialist.

It is obvious that the know-how of writers and editors

was essential for the further success of the institute in

both transferring its knowledge to the practitioners as

well as placing newsworthy articles in the media. If an

institute does not incorporate this knowledge, it should

not be surprised that its outreach and knowledge transfer

activities are ineffective. To optimize the communication

of its findings, a research institute today has to serve dual

duty. On one hand, it has to present its findings on an

international scale to get the reputation from abroad and,

on the other hand, it has to communicate with practitioners as well as with the public. The latter challenge

could be easier achieved if an institute has science

writers in-house. They are usually much better informed

about ongoing projects and are at least sometimes more

highly esteemed by the scientists than the journalists.

Because of their knowledge of current research and of

journalistic techniques, in-house writers and editors also

help bring researchers in contact with journalists from

the newspapers.

Scientists, science writers, and editors very much

appreciate the increased possibilities of making the

institute’s scientific work better known to a larger audience. Out of this awareness, writing and Web publishing skills might become even more attractive to scientists in the future. Some of them have already taken short

Figure 3—Number of publications and number of citations in articles published in Swiss

newspapers (Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research was cited

completely) Source: Swiss Media Databank, covering all major newspapers and magazines

in Switzerland.
124

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

trainings in writing, editing, Web publishing, communication, and teaching. In addition, it is very motivating to

realize that, for the next 4 years, the supervisory authority is striving for the goal of intensifying knowledge

transfer in government-funded research.

Conclusion

Science writers and editors, while doing the writing,

directly promote the transfer of scientific knowledge

from an institute. But they also help to efficiently preedit manuscripts for technical magazines and intensify

the relations with the editorial staff of media. But science

writing does not just enlarge the number of articles in the

newspapers. It also supports creating new publications

like newsletters, technical bulletins, fact sheets or even

Web sites and e-learning tools.

Compared to the large treasury of forest-related

knowledge in the German-speaking countries, it seems

that science writing is only in its initial stages at the

research institutes. Today, most of them are publishing

their own newsletters or technical bulletins written in a

popularized style, and foresters and other practitioners

use these publications to put new knowledge into

realization. But there is still a huge amount of knowledge to be displayed.

As to the strategy of further educating the scientists

within one’s own institute, there is no doubt that not

only is it feasible, it is even promising for a research institution to popularize research findings by using its

own people. To translate this idea into practice, it is

often assumed that some of the research institutes need

to engage more science writers. As an alternative, the

new and successful path WSL has taken could be recommended to other institutes. Science writers with in-house

scientific experience as well as popularized writing skills

and who also have a high rate of acceptance by their

colleagues can easily understand their scientist colleagues and, therefore, quickly help to improve both the

institute’s knowledge transfer as well as the public’s

perceptions of the institute’s research.

Unfortunately, European forestry as well as the research institutes are in the tough situation of strict budget cuts at this time. Even if there is a strong conviction

to intensify the activities in knowledge transfer, it will

be difficult right now to invest more funding and manpower into extension activities and communication.

Therefore, the above-mentioned multinational initiative

of publishing forest-related science findings on the Internet (www.waldwissen.net) might be the most time- and

cost-saving intention in this direction, using as much

synergy as possible. Irrespective of the mode of publishing (print, broadcast, or Internet), science writing is

definitely a promising way to transfer knowledge from

natural and forest sciences to regional, national, and

international audiences.

Acknowledgments

I express my gratitude to Dr. Ruth Landolt and Fredi

Lüthin, both WSL, for their support and assistance in

providing the data necessary to prepare figures 1 and

3. I also thank Dr. Alois Kempf, WSL, for his support

in providing the results of a search on the publication

statistics of 1992, 1997, and 2002 in Web of science.

Finally, I thank the two anonymous reviewers who

helped me very much to improve the manuscript.

Literature Cited

Lässig, R.; Seidl, I.; Stark, A.; Hille, S.; Glättli, E.;

Pfister, J. 2005. Scientific cooperation with Eastern

Europe: a Swiss contribution to the countries in

transition. Berne, Switzerland: Swiss National

Science Foundation. 42 p.

Lässig, R.; Wermelinger, B. 2002. Aus Schaden wird der

Förster klug. Frankfurter Allgemeine

Sonntagszeitung. 44: 64–65.

Müller-Schärer, H.; Lässig, R.; Hirsch Hadorn, G.

2003. Storms. Gaia 12. 4: 241–336.
125

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Combine Digital Media Technologies to Produce an Interactive

Distance Learning Tool

Luke W. Rogers,1 Matthew R. McLaughlin2

the presentation and view the presentation on their own

timeframe, providing a truly interactive aspect to a

distance-learning tool.

This combination of media and its application as a

distance-learning tool across multiple delivery platforms

is important in its potential to improve the effectiveness

of information dissemination. It increases the accessibility of information presented at seminars, conferences,

and workshops by making it available to worldwide and

distant audiences.

Keywords: Digital media, streaming video, distance

learning, Microsoft Producer.

Introduction

The Rural Technology Initiative (RTI) implemented a

Web-browser-based distance-learning tool to convey

information across the Internet, closed networks, and on

local computers using a free Microsoft® PowerPoint®

add-in (Microsoft Producer®) to combine video, audio,

slides, images, HTML links, and an interactive table of

contents. This combination of media and its application

as a distance-learning tool across multiple delivery

platforms is important in its potential to improve the

effectiveness of information dissemination.

Combining Digital Media Technologies

The Microsoft Producer software provides the workspace

where multiple media sources, including video, audio,

PowerPoint slides, images, and HTML links, can be combined and published into a single project. Once the different media sources are imported into the project, they

can be easily dragged and dropped onto a timeline to

be edited and, when PowerPoint slides are included,

synchronized with the corresponding video. Thirty-eight

Abstract

The Rural Technology Initiative implemented a Webbrowser-based distance-learning tool to convey information across the Internet, on closed networks, and on local

computers by using a free Microsoft® PowerPoint®

add-in (Microsoft Producer®) to combine video, audio,

slides, images, HTML links, and an interactive table of

contents. The Microsoft Producer software provides the

workspace to import and combine the different media

sources into a single project. Once the different media

sources are imported into the project, they can be easily

dragged and dropped onto a timeline to be edited and,

when PowerPoint slides are included, synchronized with

the corresponding video.

The final multimedia publication allows the end

user to simultaneously view a video presentation and

the corresponding slides. Delivering these combined

media over the Internet and through closed networks

in a dynamic and interactive form is possible through

the use of streaming video. The table of contents, extracted from the title of each Microsoft PowerPoint slide,

is shown under the video screen. A mouse click on any

title in the table of contents will advance or reverse the

video to the respective slide. Also included are control

buttons to pause and restart the video at any point in the

presentation. These options allow users to skip around in

1

Geographic information system scientist, Rural Technology

Initiative, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington,

355 Bloedel, Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195-2100; Tel: 206-543-

7418; e-mail: lwrogers@u.washington.edu.

2

Digital information specialist, Rural Technology Initiative, College

of Forest Resources, University of Washington, 355 Bloedel, Box

352100, Seattle, WA 98195-2100.
126

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

templates are included in the existing software, providing different media combination options such as video

screen size, resizable slide viewing area, table of contents, and HTML links. The entire process of editing and

combining the media can be done very rapidly; a 1-hour

presentation can be made available on the Internet

within 4 hours.

Publication of the single project can begin when

the timeline edits are finalized and the table of contents

correctly displays the project’s navigation. Microsoft

Producer includes a Publication Wizard that gives stepby-step options to help tailor the final publication to

best match the intended audiences’ connection speeds or

viewing platforms. A project can be published at a higher

speed and resolution for an audience using a broadband

connection or at a lower speed and resolution for an

audience using a dial-up modem. There is also the option

to publish the project for local playback or from a CDROM, which provides the highest quality resolution of

video, audio, slides, and images.

The final multimedia publication allows the end

user to simultaneously view a video presentation and

the corresponding slides. The table of contents, extracted

from the title of each slide, is shown under the video

screen. A mouse click on any title in the table of contents

will advance or reverse the video to the respective slide.

Also included are control buttons to pause and restart

the video at any point in the presentation. These options

allow users to skip around in the presentation and view

the presentation on their own timeframe, providing a

truly interactive aspect to a distance learning tool.

Multiple-Delivery Platforms

The ability to publish a project at multiple levels of

speed and resolution makes the output accessible to an

array of end users through several platforms: the Internet,

closed networks, and local computers or CD-ROMs.

Delivering these combined media over the Internet and

through closed networks in a dynamic and interactive

form is possible through the use of streaming video.

Streaming video is served up to coincide with the PowerPoint slides by using a streaming media server—a

specialized piece of hardware and software that accepts

requests for video files, knows about the format, bandwidth, and structure of those files, and in many cases,

pays attention to the performance of the player that is

receiving the video. Streaming servers deliver the correct

amount of data necessary to play, pause, stop, and move

to particular parts of the video file, at precisely the rate

needed to play it on the user’s media player.3

The files published by Microsoft Producer can also

be downloaded onto and viewed from a local computer

or burned to a CD-ROM and watched from a local CD

drive. Viewing the combined video, audio, slides,

images, and table of contents from a local computer results in the highest quality and fastest response to user

controls, given the lack of band width or Internet connection congestion issues. The HTML links to Internet

and network locations, however, will not be accessible if

the user is off-line.

This flexibility in multiple delivery platforms increases the size and diversity of the potential audience

for any given presentation. Additionally, it increases the

accessibility of information presented at seminars, conferences, and workshops by making it available to local

and remote audiences.

Applications of the Technology

The RTI first applied this combined interactive media

at the RTI Annual Review, held at the University of

Washington in January, 2003. Digital video footage

was recorded at each presentation, synchronized with

the corresponding Microsoft PowerPoint slides by using

Microsoft Producer, and published to the RTI media

server. Within 2 days, all of the presentations from the

review were streaming from the RTI Web site.

3

Bouthillier, L. Streaming vs. downloading video: understanding the

differences. http://www.streamingmedia.com/

article.asp?id=8456&page=2&c=11 (as of 05/05/2005). (July 22,

2003).
127

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

The speakers and audience members from the review

provided both enthusiastic and critical responses. The

ability to rapidly reproduce an entire seminar, or even

one presentation, through a medium that conveys

speaker oration, body language, and informative slides

proved to be an enticing concept. The criticism stemmed

from the low quality of video, owing almost entirely to

the poor lighting during the recording.

The outreach potential of the new technology encouraged the purchase of lighting, a canvas backdrop,

and portable audio devices to improve the video and

audio quality. This proved to be successful and added

consistency and quality to the combined multimedia

product.

Since the initial trial of this combined digital media

technology, RTI has applied this tool as a vehicle to

deliver a host of forestry-related information. The initial

concept of quickly reproducing individual presentations

and entire conferences for rapid dispersal was realized

when over 100 different productions were streaming

from the RTI Web site. These productions can be used

by the speakers to improve their delivery, by conference

attendees as a source of continued review, and as an

easily accessible and sharable resource location. Because

the publications are housed on the Internet, they can also

be discovered by otherwise unaffiliated persons via

Internet search engines.

This technology can also be applied to a field trip

setting by capturing the speaker with a portable digital

video camera while taking digital still photos of the

various discussion topics. A slideshow of the discussion topics can then be made with the digital stills in

Microsoft PowerPoint to be synchronized and published

in the same manner as a formal presentation. An instructional tutorial is another application that would allow

the user to focus on concepts or repeat directions when

necessary. This interactive combined media technology

fits well with RTI’s goal to increase access to forestry

technology and information. It should not be expected to

replace personal contact, yet rather be used as a powerful

supplementary outreach tool.

Costs and Limitations

The application of combined digital media technology

has its costs and limitations. The initial cost is the purchase of equipment (see table 1). This cost is highly

variable because of the many grades of equipment and

the intended quality of the final product. There is also a

substantial amount of work that goes into recording and

production that will differ in cost depending on the

salary and efficiency of the individual working (see table

2). The cost of the software is usually negligible owing

to the fact that most organizations and institutions run

Microsoft Windows® on their local and network computers. A major contributor to RTI’s decision to use

Microsoft Producer was its availability as a free add-in

to Microsoft PowerPoint.

The main limitation of this technology is that the

process is purely Microsoft based. The final combined

digital media product is built to work in Microsoft Internet Explorer®; although it works in several different

Web browsers, there is often limited to no interactivity

between the table of contents and the user. Additionally,

some Web browsers will not open or play the final production. This technology, as used by RTI, is also PCbased, and does not consistently work well with Mac

computers. The cost to produce a comparable product

that would work across all computer and browser platforms would be substantially increased, both in the

equipment and production time. Because RTI monitors

the operating system and browser use of all Web site

visitors, and knows that 95 percent of the visitors use

Microsoft Windows and 85 percent use Microsoft

Internet Explorer, it was decided that this limitation was

acceptable for the purpose of using combined digital

media as a distance-learning tool.

Measuring the Results

The RTI has adopted the process of combining several

forms of digital media into one interactive distance

learning tool. Over 100 presentations given in lectures,

meetings, studios, and conferences have been recorded,
128

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

edited, and published to stream from the RTI Web site

(http://www.ruraltech.org/video/). The user statistics

recorded for the RTI media server are used to gain a general understanding of the success of specific presentations or entire collections. In 2004, the number of unique

visitors to access video from the media server was almost

600, and doubled to nearly 1,300 in 2005. The ability

to sort the videos by the number of times they were

accessed by a unique visitor makes it possible to rank

Table 1—Estimated cost of equipment needed to record, produce, and serve

combined digital media as a distance-learning tool

Equipment Estimated cost

Dollars

Digital video camera 400 - 2000

Tripod with remote 100 - 200

Wireless microphone 200 - 800

9-volt rechargeable batteries and charger 50

Lighting and stands 800 - 2000

Canvas backdrop and stands 300

Video editing workstation (PC computer) 2000

Streaming media server 2500

Web server 2500

Software—Microsoft Windows 2000 or XP 100

Total estimated cost $8,950 - $12,450

Table 2—Estimated amount of time and related cost to record, edit, and

produce a 1-hour presentation

Record and production activity Estimated time

Hours

Record a 1-hour presentation 1

Transfer presentation to computer 1

Synchronize and edit in Microsoft Producera 1 – 4

Publish project to local computer or network locationb 1 – 2

Total estimated time for a 1-hour presentation 4 – 8

Estimated cost at an hourly rate of $15 $60 - $120

a Variable owing to efficiency and skill of editor.

b Variable owing to the number of different speeds in which the final project will be

published (56 kbps, 100 kbps, 150 kbps, 300 kbps, and/or 800 kbps).

the presentations and can be used to gauge the success

of the presentations and the interactive distance learning

tool. This is not a perfect source of feedback, however, as

it lacks user response with regard to how well the

technology worked for them. Given the high cost

associated with an actual survey and the difficulty in

contacting the multitude of users that have accessed

video from the RTI media server, however, the use of

media server statistics has been deemed an acceptable

measure for RTI’s purpose.
129

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Other forms of feedback encourage the continued

investment into this combined digital media as a distance learning tool. The Digital Information Specialist

at RTI trained staff members at Washington State University (WSU) Cooperative Extension and Montana State

University (MSU) to use this technology, enabling both

institutions to provide additional learning tools to their

constituents. That WSU Cooperative Extension has

hundreds of video presentations streaming from their

Web site is testimony to their perceived value of this

technology. Personal contact with the recording and

editing staff at MSU continues to be positive; faculty

interest and funding there has increased enough to

justify the purchase of a new digital video camera,

lighting, and a Web server. Lacking a formal survey,

these sources of feedback, along with a multitude of

unsolicited responses, are enough to merit continued

support and use of this technology by RTI.

Conclusion

The power of this distance-learning technology is in the

capability to combine several digital media into one

interactive package. The ability to publish this combination of video, audio, slides, images, HTML links, and an

interactive table of contents at multiple levels of quality

over the Internet, on closed networks, and to local

computers makes this tool accessible to a wide variety of

audiences. The short amount of time between recording a

presentation and serving it over a network guarantees the

timeliness of the information being published. And the

interactive aspect of on-demand streaming video allows

multiple users to watch and navigate through a presentation at their own paces.

The RTI perceives that the potential application of

this technology to increase the audience of lectures,

conferences, workshops, and fieldtrips, and to be used as

an instructional device and a presentation critique,

outweigh its costs and limitations. This interactive

distance learning tool has already helped RTI better

attain its goal to increase the accessibility of forestry

technology and information, and the technology will

continue to be improved to make it more streamlined,

more user friendly, and more accessible.
130

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726
131

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Tree Judging: A Quantifiable, Hands-on Tool to Teach Forest

Genetics and Applied Silviculture

Christopher C. Schnepf1

to loggers (particularly for mechanized harvesting) or

seasonal timber markers with little specific training related to the objectives. Historically, loggers often

focused primarily on the quality of trees cut, rather than

the quality of trees left, to maximize their return from a

given timber harvest. Focusing on which trees to leave

and why is a different focus for many loggers. Education

programs that help loggers and timber markers understand fundamental principles of what kinds of trees to

leave and why, then allow them to do a guided practice,

are likely to improve silvicultural outcomes.

Tree Judging

For many years, judging contests have been a ubiquitous

teaching tool in youth programs in animal science (e.g.,

4-H and Future Farmers of America). With livestock

judging, four (sometimes more) cattle, sheep, or other

livestock are lined up and judged according to bone

structure, muscle quality, and other criteria. Tree judging

has been adapted from these livestock judging contests.

It is an educational tool that has been particularly popular with loggers and others who have more hands-on

learning styles.

Setting Up Trees for Judging

To set up a tree-judging activity, the instructor starts by

choosing a set of four trees (often called a “class” in

livestock judging). Ideally the trees can all be seen from

one spot. For learners who are new to the activity, it is

best to start by choosing a set of trees that are the same

species and age class. The method is also a little easier in

recently thinned stands, as crowns are easier to see. Pines

(Pinus spp.) are also a little easier to judge, as they keep

Abstract

Whether it be traditional silvicultural practices such as

precommercial thinning or more complex ones such as

variable-retention timber harvesting, foresters want to

leave trees with specific characteristics that meet silvicultural objectives. Frequently the choice of individual

leave trees is left to loggers or seasonal employees with

little formal training related to the objectives. This presentation will feature a hands-on exercise that teaches

participants how to evaluate trees of varying quality

according to specified criteria. The method has been

adapted from techniques that have been used to judge

livestock and yields numerical scores of how well participants’ choices compare with the instructor’s. The

technique can be adjusted to teach a wide variety of

criteria, from traditional timber production to wildlife

tree acceptability, and has been used by University of

Idaho Extension to train family forest owners, loggers,

and youth on leave tree quality. In 2004, the method

was used with 250 loggers, 88 percent of whom indicated

they would choose better leave trees as a result of the

training.

Keywords: Genetics, silviculture, selection, judging,

leave trees.

Quality Leave Trees?

Silvicultural practices ranging from precommercial

thinning to variable-retention timber harvests require

trees with characteristics that meet silvicultural objectives. Increasingly, individual leave tree choices are left

1

Professor and Area Extension Educator—Forestry, University of

Idaho Extension, Kootenai County Office, 1000 W Hubbard, Suite

140, Coeur d’Alene, ID 83814; Tel: (208) 446-1680; Fax: (208) 446-

1690; e-mail: cschnepf@uidaho.edu.
132

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

fewer interior needles, making bole and branching

characteristics more visible.

The individual trees in the set of four can be identified in various ways, but it is often convenient to identify

them with different numbers of bands of flagging

wrapped around the stems; that is one flag band for tree

no. 1, two flag bands for tree no. 2, etc. (fig. 1). Within

these four trees, try to include a range of characteristics

to choose for or against, such as: forking; crown ratios;

crown dominance; crown vigour; crook, sweep, taper in

the bole, etc.

After selecting the trees, the instructor ranks them by

using an established set of criteria. For example, if tree

no. 3 was the best, tree no. 4 was the second best, tree no.

1 was third, and tree no. 2 was the worst, the ranking

would be “3-4-1-2.”

Along with the ranking, the instructor makes three

cuts (penalties) between the four trees to weight the

ranking differences. For example, if the top tree is much

better than the 2nd, you might make a cut of six points; if

the top tree is only slightly better than the 2nd, that cut

may be 1 point. Similar cuts are made between the 2nd

and 3rd ranked trees, and the 3rd and bottom ranked tree.

The total of all these cuts cannot be more than 15 points.

If cuts total 15 points, the middle number cannot be

larger than five. If cuts total 14, the middle number

cannot be larger than 8.

Once the ranking and cuts have been determined,

you can derive scores from all the possible ways the set

of four trees might be ranked by a learner. Sliding sets

of cards (Plager 1975) are available to determine scores

from 1 to 50 for all the possible different rankings and

cuts (fig. 2). We also have a spreadsheet that calculates

these scores.2

After the trees have been arranged, we typically

create a scoring sheet that lists all the possible combinations of rankings (fig. 3). The scoring sheet has a column

2

To request a copy of this spreadsheet, e-mail cschnepf@uidaho.edu.

of rankings for each set of trees that is judged. Participants circle their corresponding ranking for the set of

trees. When the sheets are turned in, the participants’

rankings can be scored relative to the judge’s key.

Tree Judging

After setting them up, the learners judge the trees. In

some livestock judging activities, participants also write

down their reasons for their rankings. In competitions,

evaluating reasons helps break ties. If numerical scores

are not needed for evaluation, encouraging the participants to discuss their decisionmaking with each other

often results in participants having active debates about

how to apply the criteria used to rank trees and aids

learning. Regardless of which approach is taken, after the

learners have made their choices, the instructor provides

their rankings and cuts and discusses the rationales used

to make them.

Variations

Tree judging is a fairly simple frame that can be used to

teach a wide variety of genetic and silvicultural issues

and contexts. For example, if your focus is on precommercial thinning, you can work on sapling trees. If you

wanted to focus on one issue learners are having trouble

understanding (e.g., crown vigor), you choose the appropriate trees and have them ignore every characteristic

save that one.

The instructor can also make the exercise more complex by combining criteria. For example, we have flagged different species and had participants rank them

according to species’ long-term adaptation to that site as

well as growth and form. With more sophisticated groups,

you could deal with multiage stands and discuss the

relative ability of individual trees to release (from competing vegetation), given their silvics and the site, etc.

Tree judging can also focus on nontimber silvicultural objectives. For example, one could flag and rank

wildlife snags or trees that have other specific wildlife

values (e.g., roosting trees or varying degrees of bark

attached).
133

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Figure 1—Flags used to identify trees in judging activity.
134

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Figure 2—Cards used to calculate scores for judging contests.
135

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Figure 3—Example of a scoring sheet used by participants in a tree-judging activity.
136

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

We typically use tree judging after introducing participants to the core concepts by using other curricula

on choosing leave trees (Schnepf and Brotherton 1995,

Schnepf 1999). But tree judging could also be used outside the context of formal education programs (e.g.,

calibrating leave tree choices between foresters and

timber marking crews)

Tree Judging Can Generate Outcome Data

Many policymakers want evidence of outcomes from

funds expended on technology transfer. Tree judging

can provide quantifiable evidence of learning, particularly when you use it as a pre/post test with an educational program. To document outcomes, stay consistent

in the difficulty level of sets. Making sets progressively

more challenging (as is commonly done when setting up

a set of trees in a field program to maintain learner interest) may make for negative outcomes! Doing more repetitions over time should increase scores.

Conclusion

Tree judging is a simple but effective tool to teach applied forest genetics or any other topic that requires skill

to distinguish between varying qualities of trees. It can

yield numerical scores of how well participants’ choices

compare with the instructor’s and has been used extensively by University of Idaho Extension to train family

forest owners, loggers, and youth on leave tree quality.

Tree judging is particularly effective with hands-on

learners. In 2004, the method was used with 250 loggers

who all judged 10 sets of trees each. Eighty-eight percent indicated they would choose better leave trees as a

result of the training.

Literature Cited

Plager, C. 1975. Computing slide for scoring judging

contests. Austin, MN: Geo Hormel & Co.

Schnepf, C.C. 1999. Logging “selectively”: a practical

pocket guide to partial timber harvesting. Pacific

Northwest Extension Publication no. 534. Moscow,

ID: University of Idaho Cooperative Extension

System. 96 p.

Schnepf, C.C.; Brotherton, C.C. 1995. I want to log

“selectively”—a practical guide to partial timber

harvesting for inland Northwest forest owners and

logging operators [video]. Moscow, ID: University of

Idaho Agricultural Communications Center. 40

minutes.
137

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Case Studies
138

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726
139

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Promoting Reduced-Impact Logging in Tropical Developing

Countries: A Success Story of Technology Transfer

Dennis P. Dykstra1

variety of research institutes and universities; nongovernmental organizations; industry associations; government technical-assistance programs; and international

agencies such as the International Tropical Timber

Organization, the International Labor Organization, and

the World Bank. This paper provides an overview of this

global effort and suggests reasons it has been successful

in transferring knowledge and technology from industrialized countries to tropical developing countries.

Keywords: Reduced-impact logging, code of forest

harvesting practice, environmental impacts.

Introduction

Over a period of several years leading up to the United

Nations Conference on Environment and Development

(UNCED), which was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,

in June 1992, the Forestry Department of the Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),

based in Rome, Italy, began work on programs designed

to recognize the connection between environmental

protection and sustainable economic development of

poor countries. The UNCED was an enormously important conference, involving official delegates from 178

countries, heads of state of more than 100 countries, a

large number of delegates from UN agencies and related

organizations such as the World Bank, and representatives of more than a thousand nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Hundreds of journalists covered the

12-day summit, both for television and for print media,

and as a result it was front-page news around the world.

A collection of international documents and agreements

that resulted from the conference is accessible online

from Columbia University’s Center for International

Earth Science Network (CIESIN 2005).

Abstract

Industrial timber harvesting operations commonly

employ heavy machinery and thus have the potential to

inflict significant damage on soils, streams, and residual

vegetation. Impacts associated with such operations have

been especially troubling in many tropical countries,

where mature trees often have large crowns capable of

destroying other trees when they fall; soils remain wet

for much of the year and are highly susceptible to significant compaction and erosion; loggers typically have

little education, are poorly trained, and often must work

and live in arduous, unhealthy conditions; and remote

locations make oversight by government agencies

difficult. Beginning in the early 1990s, the Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

launched a concerted effort to develop and promote

codes of forest harvesting practice that would provide

guidelines for planning and controlling logging operations in tropical forests in order to reduce environmental

impacts. This effort included research to define and

validate reduced-impact logging practices and technologies; publication and distribution of a “model” code of

forest harvesting practices; development and promotion

of regional codes of practice; and provision of technical

assistance to individual countries to develop and implement national codes of practice. Although FAO provided

the initial stimulus for the effort and has remained a central player, much of the work has been done by a wide

1

Research forest products technologist, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,

Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main Street, Suite 400,

Portland, OR 97205; Tel: 503-808-3132; e-mail: ddykstra@fs.fed.us.
140

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

The FAO was involved in UNCED at every level,

from the political to the operational. Beginning around

1990, each operating unit within FAO was encouraged

to develop a program of work consistent with the ideas

that were to be raised at UNCED. As part of this planning

process, the Forest Harvesting and Transport Branch, a

small unit of the FAO Forest Products Division, proposed

a program of work entitled “Environmentally Sound Harvesting in Tropical Forests.” The proposal was accepted

in 1991. I was hired, first on a consulting basis during the

summer of 1991 and then as a full-time forestry officer in

early 1992, to implement the program together with

Branch Chief Rudolf Heinrich, an Austrian forest engineer who at that time was already a 20-year veteran of

FAO. The program is described in Dykstra and Heinrich

(1992).

This paper provides an historical overview of an effort to promote what began as “environmentally sound

forest harvesting” and has now become commonly

known throughout the tropics as “reduced-impact

logging,” or RIL. The paper considers some of the reasons the effort has been successful and also examines

missteps that might easily have consigned it to the

dustbin of international forest history.

Tropical Forests

Foresters have recognized for 150 years or longer that

tropical forests are fundamentally different in many ways

from temperate forests (Brandis 1897). Among other

things:

• Tropical forests commonly exhibit an extraordinarily

high degree of speciation—that is, many tree species

are often present on each hectare of forest and the

management requirements for these species (or for

cohorts of species) may differ markedly. By comparison, temperate forests usually have a relatively

small number of tree species per hectare, many of

which will respond in similar ways to a given

management regime.

• Most natural forests in the tropics have only a few

trees per hectare that reach commercial size and are

of species that can be utilized profitably by the

timber industry. Temperate forests, on the other

hand, often have many stems of commercial trees per

hectare. The difference is significant—as much as

two orders of magnitude or more.

• The volume of commercial timber that can be harvested from each hectare of tropical forest is usually

much lower than in temperate forests, often by one or

two orders of magnitude. This makes logging operations in tropical forests much more expensive, per

cubic meter of timber harvested, than similar operations in temperate forests.

• Mature trees in tropical forests often have large,

heavy crowns that are capable of destroying or

severely damaging other trees when they are felled.

To some extent this is also true in temperate forests,

especially those dominated by broadleaved tree

species. Typically, however, tree crowns spread more

broadly in tropical forests, and because they are

often interconnected by strong vines, felling one

tree may cause several adjacent trees to be pulled

over or broken in what tropical foresters refer to as a

“domino effect.”

• Tropical forests are commonly inhabited by people.

Many of these people, whose number is estimated

to be around 1.6 billion, rely heavily on forest resources for their livelihoods. In some cases, these

forest-dependent people may be recent migrants

attempting to escape civil war, social unrest, or

hoping to find land that can be cultivated. In other

cases, they are indigenous people whose families

may have lived within the forest area for generations.

In either case, sustainable development as defined

by UNCED requires that these people and their

welfare be explicitly considered in forest

management.
141

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Reduced-Impact Logging as Silviculture

Logging by itself is not silviculture, just as silviculture

by itself is not forest management. Nevertheless, logging

is an essential part of both silviculture and forest management, and is one of the most important tools available

to forest managers for influencing stand conditions. By

the mid-1800s, Brandis (1897) had recognized the importance of careful logging as a component of silviculture. In Burma and later in India, he promoted the use of

elephants over bullocks or horses for skidding, arguing

that the elephants’ large, padded feet minimized soil

disturbance and compaction.

Following the end of World War II, mechanized

logging equipment was introduced into tropical forests

on a large scale. Within a few years, tropical foresters

began reporting extensive damage to residual vegetation

and soils as a result of these logging operations (e.g.,

Redhead 1960). These problems were partly attributed to

the higher rates of production associated with the use of

heavy machinery, but also to the fact that the people

operating the machinery tended to be poorly trained and

have no understanding of silvicultural requirements or

the need for environmental protection.

In reviewing assessments on logging damage, one

influential tropical forester (Dawkins 1958) went so far as

to suggest that mechanized harvesting might be incompatible with the selection harvesting systems practiced

in many parts of the tropics. Others, recognizing the

impracticality of returning to the labor-intensive systems

of earlier years, have focused on promoting technologies

and practices that would permit the use of mechanized

harvesting systems while reducing environmental impacts to a level compatible with sustainable forest management (e.g., Dykstra 2004, Dykstra and Heinrich 1992,

Hendrisen 1989, Marn and Jonkers 1982). These methods and technologies have now become widely known

as “reduced-impact logging,” or RIL. There is no single,

globally applicable definition of what constitutes RIL

because many of the specific procedures, environmental

standards, and types of logging equipment differ with

local conditions. Nevertheless a RIL operation in

tropical forests would normally include the following:

• Preharvest inventory and mapping of individual crop

trees.

• Preparation of accurate, operational maps for all

harvest areas.

• Cutting of vines where necessary in advance of

felling operations.

• Planning, design, and construction of roads,

skidtrails, and landings to provide access to the

harvest area and to the individual trees to be

harvested while minimizing soil disturbance and

protecting streams and waterways with properly

engineered crossings.

• Use of directional felling and bucking of logs in a

way that optimizes value recovery.

• Winching of logs to skidtrails rather than driving the

skidding machine to each log; limiting the operation

of heavy equipment to skidtrails.

• When necessary because of soil conditions and

topography, utilizing yarding systems that suspend

logs partially or fully above the ground.

• Conducting postharvest assessments to provide

feedback to the timber concession holder and

logging crews, and to evaluate the degree to which

RIL guidelines were followed.

Results: Adopting Reduced-Impact Logging

Although no one would claim that all or even a majority

of logging operations in tropical forests now meet the

standards of reduced-impact logging, an impressive

amount of progress has been achieved in the relatively

short time of about 15 years. A recent report by the International Tropical Timber Organization, for example,

found that a “sea change” had occurred in the attitudes

of timber companies in the Brazilian Amazon toward the

adoption of RIL technologies (ITTO 2003). Whereas the

general attitude had been very negative 5 years earlier,
142

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

by 2003 a large number of companies had adopted RIL

practices and were hiring foresters to supervise their

logging operations. Even in industrialized countries, RIL

is becoming recognized as a specific requirement of forest management; as an example, in a recent survey, 89

percent of logging operators rated training in RIL technologies as a medium- or high-priority need because of

landowner demand (Egan 2005).

What Is Driving the Adoption of ReducedImpact Logging?

The global effort to promote the use of RIL technologies in tropical forests arguably began with UNCED

in 1992, although similar efforts had been attempted

earlier. UNCED’s strong focus on the problem of tropical

deforestation resulted in a significant effort over a wide

array of fronts to improve industrial forestry operations

in the tropics. Table 1 provides a chronology of events

that I consider to have been instrumental in promoting

the adoption of RIL. Several factors were especially

important:

• Adoption of the term “reduced-impact logging,” to

replace terms that had been used previously but were

not as widely accepted such as “environmentally

sound harvesting.” In particular, “reduced-impact

logging” resonated positively with environmental

advocacy groups, which were more willing to accept

the idea that logging impacts can be reduced than

they were to acknowledge that logging could ever be

considered “environmentally sound.” It isn’t certain

who invented this term, but it was first popularized

by Putz and Pinard (1993) in reference to a carbonsequestration project put together by Jones (1995).

• Publication of the FAO Model Code of Forest

Harvesting Practice (Dykstra and Heinrich 1996)

in English, French, Spanish, and most recently in

Chinese. This publication has been enormously

influential in developing countries because of

consistent, long-term support by FAO. Prior to its

publication, there was some resistance within the

FAO Forest Products Division to the concept of such

a document. These objections were overridden by

David Harcharik, who at that time was head of the

FAO Forestry Department. Later the Director-General

of FAO, Jacques Diouf, during his declaration at the

2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in

South Africa (Diouf 2002), explicitly identified the

FAO Model Code as an example of a policy initiative that has been extraordinarily effective in

promoting sustainable development. At least 40

countries have now developed national codes or

guidelines based on the FAO Model Code. The FAO

has since published more detailed regional codes of

forest harvesting practice for Asia (FAO 1999) and

Africa (FAO 2003) and is currently working on a

regional code of forest harvesting practice for Latin

America. The FAO has also published a series of

“Forest Harvesting Case Studies” that have been

influential in convincing tropical foresters of the

value of RIL, and together with the USDA Forest

Service and United States Agency for International

Development (USAID), FAO has supported development of software that permits operators to rapidly

conduct financial analyses of RIL as compared to

conventional logging (Dykstra 2004).

• Complementary efforts by other international organizations, especially the International Tropical

Timber Organization (ITTO), the International Labor

Organization, and the World Bank, have contributed

to the adoption of RIL and to its political acceptance among tropical countries. The ITTO in particular has been active in supporting projects to

implement and evaluate RIL operations throughout

the tropics.

• Efforts by regional organizations such as the AsiaPacific Forestry Commission (APFC) to promote

sustainable forestry practices and the adoption of

RIL. The APFC in particular has been very active,

with a strong program promoting the development

of regional and national codes of forest harvesting
143

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Table 1—Chronology of events related to the publication of the Food and Agriculture Organization Model Code

of Forest Harvesting Practice and broad acceptance of reduced-impact logging in the tropics

Year Event

1990 Fiji National Code of Logging Practice published with the assistance of the International Labor

Organization.

1992 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Program on Environmentally Sound Forest Harvesting initiated

(Dykstra and Heinrich 1992).

IUFRO conference on harvesting and silviculture held in Malaysia (Wan Razali et al. 1994).

1993 Discussion on reduced-impact logging (RIL) with U.S. representative to COFO, FAO’s Committee on

Forestry, which meets every 2 years; the representative indicated that the U.S. delegation could not

support any resolution involving the words “harvesting” or “logging” due to sensitivities in the U.S.

Congress.

Austrian and Indonesian representatives to COFO jointly introduce a motion directing FAO to develop

codes of forest harvesting practice relating to tropical forests.

Sabah Foundation RIL project started (Jones 1995, Putz and Pinard 1993).

The Tropical Forest Foundation (TFF) initiated its project on low-impact logging research and training

in Pará, Brazil. This would eventually lead to publication of a comprehensive financial analysis of RIL

(Holmes et al. 2000).

1994 Workshop on the STREK Project (Silvicultural Techniques for the Regeneration of logged-over forest in

East Kalimantan), which was initiated in 1989 by CIRAD-Forêt (France) and the Indonesian Ministry of

Forestry, held to review relationships between RIL and silvicultural practices.

Draft of the FAO Model Code of Forest Harvesting Practice produced (Dykstra 1994) in spite of opposition within the FAO Forest Products Division. Two workshops were held to review the draft, in the

Philippines and in Germany.

1995 Preliminary release version of FAO Model Code introduced at COFO by David Harcharik, newly

appointed head of the Forestry Department at FAO, in spite of continued opposition within the Forest

Products Division. Publication of the document was approved by COFO delegates.

Code of Conduct for Logging of Indigenous Forests in Selected South Pacific Countries endorsed by the

26th meeting of the Asia-Pacific Forum (SPFDP 1995).

FAO satellite meeting held at the IUFRO World Congress in Tampere, Finland (FAO 1997).

1996 FAO Model Code published (Dykstra and Heinrich 1996) in English, French, and Spanish. All versions

are available both in print and online.

RIL conference for Southeast Asia held in Sandakan, Sabah, Malaysia.

Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission formation of an ad-hoc working group to develop a Code of Practice for

Forest Harvesting in Asia-Pacific.

1997 First national code of practice known to be based on the FAO Model Code published in Guyana.

IUFRO interdivisional conference on RIL hosted by the Bolivian Forestry Project sponsored by the

U.S. Agency for International Development (BOLFOR) in Bolivia.
144

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

practice; an information-sharing network (RILNET);

the organization of international conferences on

RIL and on sustainable forest management; a

comprehensive program of training and awareness;

and support for the development of tools to promote

RIL, including the RILSIM software mentioned

previously.

• Work by research institutions such as the Center for

International Forestry Research, the French tropical

forestry research organization CIRAD-Forêt, the

Tropenbos Foundation of the Netherlands, and

many national research agencies and universities in

developing countries has legitimized RIL as a focus

of research and development efforts.

• Development of practical, field-oriented training

programs on RIL methods and technologies, most

notably by the U.S.-based Tropical Forest Foundation (TFF) and its Brazilian subsidiary, Fundação

Floresta Tropical (FFT), has been essential for

promoting adoption of RIL. The TFF has now

launched similar regional training programs for

Africa and Asia.

• Implementation of projects to promote adoption

of RIL by donor agencies for both multilateral

and bilateral development-assistance programs

such as Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische

Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) (Germany), USAID (United

States), Japan International Cooperation Agency

(JICA) (Japan), Department for International Development (DFID) (United Kingdom), Canadian

International Development Agency (CIDA) (Canada),

Swedish International Development Cooperation

Agency (SIDA) (Sweden), and others.

• Active promotion of RIL by international environmental organizations such as the Worldwide Fund

for Nature, IUCN (the World Conservation Union),

the Wildlife Conservation Society, and Greenpeace;

and by influential nongovernmental organizations

Table 1—Chronology of events related to the publication of the Food and Agriculture Organization Model Code

of Forest Harvesting Practice and broad acceptance of reduced-impact logging in the tropics (continued)

Year Event

1999 Regional Code of Practice for Forest Harvesting in Asia and the Pacific published (FAO 1999).

2000 Chinese translation of the FAO Model Code (Dykstra and Heinrich 1996) published by FAO.

Special issue of the International Forestry Review dedicated to RIL (Commonwealth Forestry

Association 2000).

2001 International conference on applying RIL held in Kuching, Sarawak, and Malaysia (Enters et al. 2002).

RIL guidelines published for Indonesia (Elias et al. 2001).

2002 Draft national code of forest practice published in China with support from FAO and ILO.

FAO Declaration at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg (Diouf 2002).

2003 International conference on codes of forest practice held in Japan (Japan Forestry Agency 2003).

Regional Code of Practice for Forest Harvesting in Africa published in French (FAO 2003).

2002-2004 A financial-analysis software package, RILSIM, was developed and promoted by the USDA Forest

Service, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), FAO, and the Asia-Pacific Forestry

Commission (APFC) as a means of encouraging loggers in developing countries to adopt RIL methods

(Dykstra 2004).

2005 According to FAO, at least 40 countries have used the FAO Model Code as a model in developing their

own national codes of practice or guidelines related to forest harvesting.
145

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

in tropical countries such as IMAZON (the Institute

for Man and Nature) in Brazil and Forest Watch in

Indonesia.

• Adoption of RIL as a requirement for certification of

sustainably managed forests under the standards and

guidelines of the Forest Stewardship Council, with

similar requirements either explicitly stated or

implied in other certification programs.

• Acceptance of RIL by influential industry

organizations such as the Sarawak Timber

Association in Malaysia and the Association of

Timber Concession Holders in Indonesia; AIMEX

(the Association of Timber Exporting Industries of

the State of Pará) in Brazil; and the African Timber

Organization and ATIBT (Association Technique

Internationale des Bois Tropicaux) in Africa.

• Support for RIL concepts by government agencies in

developing countries that have major areas of

tropical forest. Of particular note in this regard are

the governments of Indonesia, Malaysia, China, Fiji,

Ghana, Congo, Gabon, Guyana, Bolivia, and Brazil,

although many other countries have also endorsed

the concept of RIL.

Concluding Remarks

Reduced-impact logging is clearly a concept whose time

has come, at least for tropical forests. For the most part,

RIL itself is not new; most of these technologies and

practices have been developed in temperate forests and

are used there as a matter of course, or as a result of forest

practice laws that require them. The rapid rate at which

RIL is being adopted in tropical forests, therefore, can be

considered a success story in the transfer of technology

from industrialized countries to developing countries.

It’s important to recognize that this success cannot be

attributed to any single person, organization, or event,

but rather to a combination of events, evolving public

attitudes about forests, and an informal (and to some

extent even unwitting) consortium of organizations and

individuals.

I consider five complementary factors to have been

particularly important in facilitating the widespread

adoption of RIL practices in the tropics:

Champions. Since its introduction in the early

1990s, RIL has had numerous champions, both among

individuals and among organizations. These champions

represent a wide variety of viewpoints, from industrial

forestry to conservation advocacy. Although they might

disagree on many policy issues, the champions agree on

the importance of RIL for the future of tropical forests,

and as a result their combined voice has been very

strong.

Policy support. The strong support of RIL by the

major international development-assistance organizations, especially FAO, ITTO, and the World Bank,

coupled with equally strong support from influential

environmental organizations such as World Wildlife

Fund (WWF), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS),

and IUCN, has led to very broad support at the ministerial level in a majority of countries where tropical forests

represent a major resource.

Forest certification. By requiring the adoption of

RIL as an essential prerequisite for certification of forests

as being sustainably managed, certification bodies have

provided a strong incentive to timber companies interested in selling forest products in markets that require

certification. This has been cited as a major reason for

widespread adoption of RIL in the Brazilian Amazon

(ITTO 2003).

Training. Innovative approaches to on-the-ground

training in RIL technologies and practices as developed

by the Tropical Forest Foundation and by a variety of

specialized consulting companies have been essential

in getting RIL actually implemented. Many of these

efforts have been supported financially by developmentassistance organizations, particularly ITTO and the

World Bank, as well as by bilateral aid agencies.

Lack of controversy. Although there has inevitably

been some resistance to the promotion of RIL among
146

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

advocacy groups that consider any logging in tropical

forests to be unacceptable, by and large it has been

surprisingly free of controversy. This has encouraged

more rapid adoption by loggers than would have

been the case if the concept of RIL itself had been

controversial.

Literature Cited

Brandis, D. 1897. Forestry in India: origins and early

developments. Reprinted in 1994. New Delhi, India:

Vedams Books. 174 p.

Center for International Earth Science Information

Network [CIESIN]. 2005. UNCED collection of

documents and agreements. Palisades, NY: Columbia

University. 3 p. http://www.ciesin.org/datasets/

unced/unced.html. (March 18).

Commonwealth Forestry Association. 2000. Special

issue: reduced impact logging. International Forestry

Review. 2(1). 70 p.

Dawkins, H.C. 1958. The management of tropical high

forest, with special reference to Uganda. IFI Paper 34.

Oxford, United Kingdom: Imperial Forestry Institute.

155 p.

Diouf, J. 2002. Déclaration de le Directeur Général,

Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’Alimentation

et l’Agriculture. Sommet mondial pour le

développement durable, Johannesburg, Afrique de

Sud, 30 août 2002 (in French). 5 p. http://

www.un.org/events/wssd/statements/faoF.htm.

(March 18, 2005).

Dykstra, D.P. 1994. FAO model code of forest harvesting practice (review draft). Rome, Italy: Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

105 p.

Dykstra, D.P. 2004. RILSIM 2.0: software for financial

analysis of reduced-impact logging systems.

Portland, OR: Blue Ox Forestry. CD-ROM and

printed User’s Guide. 120 p. http://

www.blueoxforestry.com/RILSIM/. (March 18,

2005).

Dykstra, D.P.; Heinrich, R. 1992. Sustaining tropical

forests through environmentally sound timber harvesting practices. Unasylva. 169: 9–15.

Dykstra, D.P.; Heinrich, R. 1996. FAO model code of

forest harvesting practice (simultaneously published

under equivalent titles in French and Spanish, and

translated into Chinese in 2000). ISBN 92-5-103690-

X. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization

of the United Nations. 85 p.

Egan, A.F. 2005. Training preferences and attitudes

among loggers in northern New England. Forest

Products Journal. 55(3): 19–26.

Elias, A.G.; Kartawinata, K.; Machfudh, K.A. 2001.

Reduced impact logging guidelines for Indonesia

(also published in the Indonesian language as

“Pedoman reduced impact logging Indonesia.”

ISBN 979-8764-75-7. Bogor, Indonesia: Center

for International Forestry Research. 114 p.

Enters, T.; Durst, P.B.; Applegate, G.B.; Kho, P.C.S.;

Man, G., eds. 2002. Applying RIL to advance

sustainable forest management. In: Proceedings

of an international conference. RAP Publication

2002/14. Bangkok, Thailand: Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office

for Asia and the Pacific. 311 p.

Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]. 1997.

Research on environmentally sound forest practices

to sustain tropical forests. Proceedings of the FAO/

IUFRO satellite meeting held in conjunction with the

XX IUFRO World Congress. Rome, Italy: Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

155 p.
147

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]. 1999. AsiaPacific Forestry Commission code of practice for

forest harvesting in Asia-Pacific. RAP Publication

1999/12. Bangkok, Thailand: Regional Office for

Asia and the Pacific. 133 p.

Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]. 2003. Code

regional d’exploitation forestière à faible impact

dans les forêts denses tropicales humides d’Afrique

centrale et de l’Ouest. Rome, Italy. 131 p.

Hendrisen, J. 1989. Damage-controlled logging in

managed tropical rain forests in Suriname. Series on

the ecology and management of tropical rain forests

in Suriname. The Netherlands: Wageningen

Agricultural University. 204 p.

Holmes, T.P.; Blate, G.M.; Zweede, J.C.; Pereira, R. Jr.;

Barreto, P.; Boltz, F.; Bauch, R. 2000. Financial

costs and benefits of reduced-impact logging relative

to conventional logging in the eastern Amazon.

Alexandria, VA: Tropical Forest Foundation. 48 p.

http://www.tropicalforestfoundation.org/

costbenefits.html. (March 18, 2005).

International Tropical Timber Council [ITTO]. 2003.

Synthesis report on ex-post evaluations of reducedimpact logging projects. Report presented to the

Committee on Reforestation and Forest Management

at the 33rd Session of the International Tropical

Timber Council. Document CRF(XXXIII)/6.

Yokohama, Japan: International Tropical Timber

Council. 16 p. http://www.itto.or.jp/live/

PageDisplayHandler?pageId=185. (March 18, 2005).

Japan Forestry Agency. 2003. Proceedings,

international expert meeting on the development and

implementation of national codes of practice for

forest harvesting: issues and options. Tokyo, Japan:

Forestry Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry

and Fisheries. 376 p.

Jones, D.J. 1995. Personal communication. Carbon

sequestration attorney, South Pasadena, CA 91030.

Marn, H.M.; Jonkers, W. 1982. Logging damage in

tropical high forest. In: Tropical forests—source of

energy through optimisation and diversification.

In: Proceedings of an international conference.

Selangor, Malaysia: Penerbit University Pertanian.

Putz, F.E.; Pinard, M.A. 1993. Reduced-impact logging

as a carbon-offset method. Conservation Biology.

7(4): 755–757.

Redhead, J.R. 1960. An analysis of logging damage

in lowland rain forest in western Nigeria. Nigerian

Forestry Information Bulletin (New Series) No.

10: 5–16.

South-Pacific Forestry Development Programme

[SPFDP]. 1995. Code of conduct for logging of

indigenous forests in selected South Pacific countries. FAO/UNDP Project RAS/92/361. Working paper

prepared for the 26th meeting of the South-Pacific

Forum. Bangkok, Thailand: Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations, Asia-Pacific

Regional Office. 28 p.

Wan Razali, W.M.; Shamsudin, I.; Appanah, S.; Rashid,

M.F.A., eds. 1994. Harvesting and silviculture for

sustainable forestry in the tropics. Proceedings of

an international conference. ISBN 983-9592-21-1.

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Forest Research Institute

Malaysia, Kepong. 212 p.
148

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726
149

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Rural Technology Initiative Science and Technology to Assist Rural

Forest Resource-Based Communities in Washington State, U.S.A.1

Donald P. Hanley,2 Bruce R. Lippke,3 David M. Baumgartner,4 and C. Larry Mason5

direct congressional appropriation in 2000

and subsequent appropriations through the

U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service Cooperative Programs made funding

possible. For additional information, please

refer to the RTI Web site www.ruraltech.org.

Keywords: Forestry technology

transfer.

Introduction

The state of Washington is located in the Pacific Northwestern United States and contains approximately 17

million ha of land area.

More than half of Washington is forested; ownership distribution is 55 percent government, 6 percent

Native American, and 39 percent private (table 1).

Approximately 100,000 family forest owners, also

known as nonindustrial private landowners (NIPF) in

Washington state control 1.2 million ha, or 19 percent,

of the commercial forest land in the state. Recent harvest

restrictions on federal forest lands intended to protect

endangered species and to increase late-successional

reserves have impacted rural communities. Since 1987,

timber harvests have declined 95 percent on federal

lands and 57 percent on state lands in Washington

(Larson 2000). Nearly 9.2 million m3 of timber was

harvested off family-owned forests in 1999, accounting

for 31.5 percent of the timber harvest in the state.

The disparity in personal income between rural

Washington timber communities and urban areas has

increased greatly over recent years and can be expected

to widen further with new requirements to protect salmon

habitat (Eddelson and Lippke 1999). Although urban

Abstract

The Rural Technology Initiative (RTI) was established

in January 2000 by a federal grant as a pilot project to

accelerate the implementation of new technologies in

rural forest resource-based communities. Increasing complexity from changing environmental regulations, such

as the new Forest and Fish Agreement in Washington

State, and the recognition that new research findings

were well ahead of implementation, suggested the need

for more rapid technology transfer. Efforts to mitigate

the substantial widening gap between urban and rural

incomes depend upon more successful technology

transfer. University of Washington and Washington State

University Extension developed RTI as a cooperative

program with the support of a Rural Advisory Board. A

1

 This paper is based in part and updated from Baumgartner, D.M.;

Mason, L. 2003. Rural Technology Initiative (RTI): a pilot project

to assist rural forest resource based communities in Washington

state, USA. Presented at IUFRO Working Group 6.11.02

symposium: forestry and rural development in industrialized

countries: policy, programs, and impacts. Rotorua, New Zealand.

2

 Professor and extension forester, Department of Natural Resource

Sciences, Washington State University, P.O. Box 646410, Pullman,

WA 99164-6410 U.S.A.; Tel: 206-685-4960; Fax: 206-616-4128; email: dhanley@u.washington.edu.

3

 Rural Technology Initiative program director, College of Forest

Resources, University of Washington, Box 352100, Seattle, WA

98195 U.S.A.; Tel: (206) 543-8684; e-mail:

blippke@u.washington.edu.

4

Professor and extension forester, Department of Natural Resource

Sciences, Washington State University, PO Box 646410, Pullman,

WA 99164-6410 U.S.A.; Tel: 509-335-2964; e-mail:

baumgartner@wsu.edu.

5

 Rural Technology Initiative program coordinator, College of Forest

Resources, University of Washington, Box 352100, Seattle, WA

98195 U.S.A.; Tel: (206) 543-0827; e-mail:

larrym@u.washington.edu.
150

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

areas are growing with new technologies, rural areas are

hampered by difficulties in adopting new technologies.

The forest sector may appear to be an overly mature, lowtechnology sector; however, in reality the ability to

manage forests for increasingly complex wood product

and environmental values is extremely sensitive to

technology.

The availability of basic scientific knowledge

needed to manage forests is far ahead of the capacity to

convert the knowledge to useable technologies, to make

the technologies accessible to rural areas, and to train

people to use the technologies. Thus, there is a need for

a strengthened network and service system of trainers

and users with a focus on access and communication.

Solutions to problems created by salmon listings, for

example, require intensive training in managing riparian

areas and use of forestry equipment in those areas, including specialized logging machinery, remote sensing

devices, use of computer inventory tools, along with

landscape management plans, financial analysis, planning packages, and product marketing.

Family forest owners, or NIPFs, are facing increasing

complexity from changing environmental regulations,

such as the new Washington State Forest and Fish Agreement and other forest practice regulations. Tribal forestry

programs need better access to science and technology

to expand education and career opportunities in resource

management for tribal members. Forestry consultants

that provide professional services for small landowners,

tribes, and other rural forest landowners are expanding

their skills through increased use of analytical and mapping software technologies. Rural educators need programs that link K-12 and community colleges to emerging technologies and scientific findings resulting from

university research. Interested publics and policymakers

need fast access to emerging scientific findings to aid

successful land use planning. These groups and others

are served by the programs developed as part of the

Rural Technology Initiative (RTI).

The Rural Technology Initiative

In January 2000, the University of Washington College

of Forest Resources (UWCFR) and the Washington State

University Department of Natural Resource Sciences

and Extension (WSUNRS) received a $900,000 Congressional Appropriation through USDA-Forest Service Cooperative Programs to create the RTI as a pilot regional

network and service system to increase technology

transfer to rural forestry communities. The mission of RTI

is to Empower the existing infrastructure to use better

technology in rural areas for managing forests for

increased product and environmental values in support

of local communities.

The RTI Partners

Interdisciplinary teams of faculty, staff, and graduate

students from both universities have been assembled to

Table 1—Ownership of forest land and timber harvest for Washington state

Ownership Forest ownership Timber harvested in 1999

Percent of total Cubic meters Percent

Forest industry 20 12 417 874 42.5

Nonindustrial private 19 9 203 835 31.5

Native American 6 2 220 607 7.6

State 11 4 499 653 15.4

Federal 44 876 555 3.0

Total 100 29 218 526 100

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture 2000. Conversion based on 150 board feet per

cubic meter.
151

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

undertake forestry technology research, development,

and technology transfer. Each organization brings

unique expertise and talents to the RTI partnership.

The University of Washington

(www.cfr.washington.edu). Located in Seattle in western

Washington, UWCFR was founded in 1907.

Washington State University (www.nrs.wsu.edu).

Washington State University Department of Natural

Resource Sciences, located in Pullman, Washington, in

rural eastern Washington, is unique as the state’s land

grant university and as such, has three distinct mandates:

teaching, research, and extension.

Extension Forestry (ext.nrs.wsu.edu). The WSUNRS

Program is administered by Washington State University,

which is located in Pullman, Washington. Extension

forestry field/county educators are located in 8 of

Washington’s 39 counties and have local or area-specific

responsibilities, whereas state extension educators have

statewide responsibilities and subject matter leadership.

Extension forestry is a relatively small component

of the overall extension system, which offers educational programs in five major areas: agriculture, natural

resources, community resource development, 4-H and

youth development, and home economics and human

nutrition. To help improve NIPF, extension programs

target (1) public awareness, (2) policy education, (3)

program coordination, (4) professional education, and

(5) forest-land management practices.

To understand extension in the United States, two

aspects are particularly important: (1) Extension is

unique among public natural resource programs because

it considers the objectives of the individual forest owner

before all others. It works with the owner to identify management alternatives that are in his or her best interests,

recognizing that the side benefits will be more productive farms and forests, and a stable raw material supply

for generations. (2) Extension in the United States is

administered at the state level by land grant universities.

This means that most Extension professionals are members of an academic institution rather than a straight-line

government agency.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

State and Private Cooperative Forestry (www.fs.fed.us/

spf/coop). Cooperative Forestry is a federal program

administered by the USDA Forest Service, which by

providing federal funding to RTI and other economic

action programs, helps rural communities and businesses

dependent on forest-based resources to become sustainable and self-sufficient.

Cooperators. The RTI cooperates with a host of

federal and state conservation programs including the

Multiagency National Fire Plan Implementation Community Assistance and Economic Action Program; the

USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Land Management; the Intertribal Timber Council; the USDA

Forest Service; Natural Resources Conservation Service;

the Stewardship Incentive Program; Small Forest Landowner Office and Forest Stewardship of the Washington

Department of Natural Resources; the Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development; the Washington Office of Public Instruction; and

others to promote better technology in rural areas to

manage forests for increased forest products and environmental values in support of local communities.

The RTI Rural Advisory Board

A rural advisory board, comprising representatives of

community groups, tree farmers, forestry associations,

tribes, forest product manufacturers, conservation districts, community colleges and others was created to

guide RTI priorities. This advisory board is instrumental

in project development priorities. The RTI advisory

board identified four initial priorities:

• Landscape management case studies of (1) Forest

and Fish Agreement impacts on NIPF owners under a

range of alternative strategies, (2) dry-site thinning

to reduce forest fire risk and critical habitat

management alternatives, and (3) carbon credit

protocols.
152

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

• Training and assistance for forest-land owners, tribal

foresters, forestry consultants, rural educators, and

others in response to an RTI-conducted needs

assessment.

• Scientifically credible habitat models for landscape

management alternatives and monitoring programs

to demonstrate treatment impacts.

• Value-enhancing certified data for managed forests.

The RTI’s Rural Advisory Board includes member

representatives from the NIPF owners Washington Farm

Forestry Association, Association of Consulting Foresters, The Yakama Nation, The Colville Confederated

Tribes, The Quinault Indian Nation, The University of

Washington Olympic Natural Resources Center, American Forest Resource Council, Washington Contract Loggers Association, Washington Hardwoods Commission,

Columbia Pacific RC&D, Northwest Forest Products

Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Washington

Association of Conservation Districts, Okanogan

Communities Development Corporation, USDA Forest

Service Cooperative Programs, Spokane Community

College, and Green River Community College.

Needs Assessments

To understand better rural forestry technology needs, one

of the first RTI projects was to survey Washington forest

consultants and NIPF landowners. The needs assessment

is summarized below:

RTI carried out needs assessments:

• Surveyed consulting foresters’ needs, including

training topics, level of training, and times and

locations for delivery. With a 40 percent response

rate, training topics considered important or very

important included the following: regulatory interpretation; riparian protection; tax and estate planning; geographic information systems (GIS) instruction; global positioning system (GPS) instruction;

unstable slope and road impacts on water resources;

instruction in the Landscape Management System

(LMS); spreadsheets and data management; and

growth and yield. A majority of respondents felt that

new technology can benefit their businesses by

transferring skills needed to help landowners and

managers more efficiently meet regulatory

requirements at lower costs.

• Analyzed and interpreted data from two NIPF landowner surveys in Washington state preparatory to

the development of a habitat conservation planning

approach. Training topics considered important to

very important were regulatory interpretation (95

percent), riparian protection (85 percent), tax and

estate planning (83 percent), GIS (75 percent), GPS

(68 percent), unstable slopes (63 percent), road layout (63 percent), LMS (60 percent), spreadsheets and

data management (60 percent), and growth and yield

(56 percent). The majority of respondents felt that

new technology can lower costs and more efficiently

meet regulatory requirements.

Analysis of other questions from these surveys

indicated that respondents favored 2- or 3-day short

courses that were affordable, user-friendly, and could be

offered during the week at different locations around the

state.

The Internet

The Internet is a powerful delivery mechanism for

technology transfer. It is important for RTI to assist its

customers in becoming better acquainted with the ease

and value of the World Wide Web. However, many rural

forestry landowners and some professsionals are new to

the Internet. To help promote Internet use, all training

materials used in RTI short courses include verbage to

assist in Internet navigation. All RTI publications, announcements, and newsletters are distributed in hardcopy but are also available for download at no charge

from the RTI Web site www.ruraltech.org. The RTI Web

site also offers a number of other attractive options that

are increasing in popularity. An interactive conversion
153

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

calculator for forestry measurements is the most frequently used free service on the RTI Web site, but other

features such as the free forestry image library or the user

question and comment page are frequently visited as

well. The RTI Web site is linked to the UWCFR and

WSUNRS sites to provide an information suite that can

be used by professional foresters, loggers, engineers, and

landowners alike. Web site use has risen steadily to more

than 5,500 individual nonuniversity visitors per month.

Interactive Streaming Video

Streaming video is a technology used on the World Wide

Web to expedite the video viewing process and expand

rural access to distance-learning technologies customized for use with low band-width. It allows the end user

to start viewing a video file as soon as a connection is

made to the media server. The actual process of streaming video over the Internet requires a complex system

of events, but the underlying concept is simple. Instead

of waiting for the entire video file to download before

watching it, the user is able to watch smaller sections of

the video right away while downloading the rest. This is

accomplished by “streaming” the video file over the

Internet in small pieces. A media player on a user’s

computer deciphers those streaming pieces as they are

downloaded and presents them seamlessly to the viewer.

The result is close to real-time viewing.

The RTI first experimented with interactive streaming video at the RTI Annual Review in January 2003.

Digital video footage was taken of each presentation,

synchronized with the corresponding PowerPoint®

slides, and streamed from the RTI Web site. This triggered the realization that streaming video technology

is a powerful tool for sharing information and ideas. It

incorporates a speaker’s oration with informative slides,

and it makes them available to users with either a highspeed or dial-up Internet connection, as well as on

CD-ROM. In little more than a year, RTI has gone from

experimenting with streaming video technology to

making it a major mode of outreach with skilled film

crews at both Washington State University and University of Washington (fig. 1). This video technology dramatically increases the accessibility of information presented at seminars, conferences, and workshops and

makes it available to a worldwide audience. Streaming

video fits perfectly with RTI’s goal to increase access to

forestry technology and information. Washington State

University Extension is using this new technology to

reach and educate family forest landowners throughout

the state. In 2003, RTI’s interactive streaming video technology was used to expand the reach of a “Sudden Oak

Death” conference. Currently there are over 180 presentations on the Washington State University Extension

Forestry Web site (ext.nrs.wsu.edu) and over 200 on

the main RTI Web site (www.ruraltech.org). Recently, a

streaming video tutorial has been added, and workshops

in the use of this technology will soon be offered to rural

educators.

The RTI Projects

Listed below are some significant RTI projects. To

accommodate space limitations, this is not a complete

list. For additional information, please refer to the RTI

Web site www.ruraltech.org.

Training and Technology Transfer

The RTI responded quickly and established a series of

affordable short courses (6 to 8 sessions per year) in the

use of forestry and mapping software technologies. All

course offerings are certified for continuing forestry

education credits from the Society of American Foresters

and are presented by faculty and staff from UWCFR and

WSUNRS.

Empowering Family Forest Landowners—

Coached Planning and its Relationship to

RTI

The Forest Stewardship “Coached Planning” shortcourse

is an educational opportunity for family forest landowners (fig. 2). This informational, hands-on, practical
154

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Figure 1—Web page view from the RTI Web site.

Figure 2—Coached planning participants
155

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

approach enables landowners to learn useful information

about their land and its resources. Participants author

their own forest stewardship plan with guidance and

“coaching” by natural resource professionals, some of

whom come from the RTI staff. Coached planning is

important because it empowers landowners to make

decisions about their land in a wise economic and ecological manner—decisions are based on their own ownership objectives, and thus the plan has a high probability

of implementation. The Cooperative Extension Program

in collaboration with Washington Department of Natural

Resources Forest Stewardship Program, started coaching

landowners in 1995, but since 2000, RTI technologies

have been incrementally introduced into the curriculum

with good response. The most popular software is the

LMS, a powerful forestry program developed at the

University of Washington with Forest Service funding

support. The RTI adapted this software for use by small

landowners through the development of user-friendly

features such as the Inventory Wizard. Inventory Wizard

allows users to easily enter field inventory data into LMS

for inventory analysis, simulations of treatment alternatives, estimates of future growth and yield, and other

outputs of interest including visualization of forest conditions. The LMS software is provided at no charge to all

coached planning participants.

Since 1995, 80 eight-week coached planning sessions have been offered serving more than 1,400 family

forest landowners. Over 700 stewardship plans have been

prepared. We have received dozens of testimonial letters

from satisfied landowners. We have implemented the use

of the interactive streaming video as a teaching aid and

have begun use of the Inventory Wizard and LMS to help

develop management alternatives templates.

The Landscape Management System

The LMS brings together a user-friendly software

package of growth-and-yield models, forest visualization

capabilities, habitat indices, economic analysis, and

more (fig. 3). Trainees learn how to model changes in

Figure 3—LMS brings together a user-friendly software package of growth and yield models, forest visualization capabilities,

habitat indices, economic analysis, and more.
156

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

forest inventories over time and across large geographical areas. The LMS is distributed at no charge

(lms.cfr.washington.edu/) through a partnership between

the UWCFR and the Yale School of Forestry and the

Environment. In the past year, the following updates are

noted:

• Released LMS version 3. The new version is designed to increase user friendliness, such as the

inclusion of the Inventory Wizard, Econometrics,

Site Index Calculator, and Log Sort Wizard.

• Conducted numerous LMS training sessions for consultants, educators, small forest landowners, tribal

foresters, and others.

• Developed a user-friendly LMS tutorial with software made available at no charge on CD or download from lms.cfr.washington.edu/.

• Developed templates for management alternatives

that are being integrated with Washington State

University/Department of Natural Resources

coached planning classes to assist NIPF owners in

developing forest stewardship plans.

• Introduced LMS 3 to family forest landowners and

forest consultants with the expectation that they will

help us integrate this software tool in management

planning.

Geographic Information System and Global

Positioning System Activities

The GIS is a specialized computer system made for the

creation, storage, analysis, and display of spatially

referenced information. The popular ESRI program

ArcGIS is the software used in this training. The GIS

helps forest landowners to plan harvest activities and

road maintenance projects. The RTI has developed

several GIS extensions that are downloadable from the

Web site: “Pegger” for virtual road pioneering (fig. 4),

“CulSed” for culvert location to reduce sediment at less

cost, and “LMS Analyst,” which creates stand attributes

for mean slope, elevation, and aspect. The GPS is a

utility used for a variety of purposes in forest and natural

resource management. Features such as roads, streams,

wetlands, stand boundaries, sampling plots, and bird

nests can be mapped easily and with high accuracy and

precision when GPS coordinates are transferred into GIS.

Roads Impacts

• Developed case studies that identify the cost of

required changes to roads and culverts and consider

road density planning for tree farms to identify

preferred alternatives to comply with forest practice

requirements.

• Estimated total landowner costs for culvert replacements that led to legislation more favorable to

sustainable production.

• Produced an extension bulletin, Roads on Small

Acreage Forests, which describes basic road

principles for NIPF landowners.

Riparian Management

Strategies to maximize habitat opportunities for anadromous fish are required by both federal and state law but

are often costly and may cause small forest landowners to

seek financial relief by developing their lands for

nonforestry use. To understand better the breadth of

economic impacts to Washington’s family forest landowners, RTI conducted case studies of actual landowner

circumstances. These case studies have proven to be

useful to landowners wishing to provide the Washington

state legislature with credible estimates of real costs of

regulatory compliance. Case studies also point out

opportunities for the development of customized approaches that provide better habitat at reduced cost.

Further study into riparian functionality will help landowners with the development of alternative plans. The

RTI has assembled interdisciplinary teams of faculty and

staff experts from UWCFR and WSUNRS to investigate

canopy/sun relationships, course woody debris recruitment, and organic particulate delivery within forested

riparian zones towards the development of user-friendly

management templates to aid landowners in planning

riparian harvest activities (fig. 5).
157

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Figure 4—GIS extension are downloadable from website such as “Pegger” for virtual road pioneering.

Figure 5—To understand the impact of new riparian regulations, in the state of Washington, the RTI analyzed impacts of

management alternatives, such as the three-tiered zones approach offered here. SPTH = Site potential tree height.
158

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

• Analyzed impacts of management alternatives.

• Prepared economic impact case studies on smallsized forested parcels, analyzed the economic impact of a base case and four management alternatives

allowed under the Forest and Fish Agreement. Total

forest value losses ranged from 27 percent to 36

percent under the “best case” scenario, and from

45 percent to 83 percent under the “worst case”

scenario indicating a broad disparity in landowner

impacts.

• Developed an assessment procedure to evaluate

alternative plans for effectiveness in achievement of

desired future environmental conditions and economics sufficient for sustainable forest management.

Wildlife Management

Response of wildlife to forest management is another

important consideration in the development of forest

management plans. The RTI staff work to assist tribes,

consultants, and landowners in the use of habitat suitability indices (HSI) to understand quantification of

expected wildlife response to alternative harvest activities. Additionally RTI partially supports a wildlife

habitat specialist at Washington State University that

has primary responsibilities for small forest lands and

habitats. Wildlife habitat management is a fully integrated topic in the coached planning curriculum as well.

Habitat Conservation Planning

The RTI has assembled an interdisciplinary team

of faculty and staff that are working with small

forest landowners (Family Forest Foundation,

familyforestfoundation.org) as well as federal and state

agency personnel in Lewis County, Washington, to

develop a programmatic multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCPs are described under the

Endangered Species Act as contractual agreements

between landowners and the federal government where

landowners volunteer protection, restoration, and

enhancement of targeted habitat qualities in exchange

for long-term management certainty. To date, HCPs have

been too complicated and expensive to be accessible to

small forest landowners. The creation of a programmatic

HCP will bring together multiple landowners as one

negotiating entity in a simplified regulatory process that

will be the first of its kind in the Nation and will serve as

a model for achieving sustainable forestry in other

counties and states. Emerging forestry technologies, RTI

scientific expertise, and a subsequent better understanding of adaptive management concepts have made this

possible.

 To develop credible data on the impacts of forest

management on habitat and stream conditions, RTI:

• Developed models directly linking habitatsuitability measures to the evolution of forest

stands under management.

• Convened a panel of forest scientists to plan the

development of better models and to identify gaps

in needed coverage. The panel circulated a draft plan

identifying upland habitat, riparian zone habitat,

and instream functionality and modeling needs.

• Used the Satsop Management Plan (Grays Harbor

County) as a pilot test and case study for developing

upland habitat models based on the Fish and

Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Procedure. Using LMS,

a range of management alternatives and resulting

HSIs can be evaluated for their impacts over time.

• Evaluated instream functionality indicators

identified by the National Council for Air and

Stream Improvement, Inc. (streambank stability,

sediment reduction, chemical removal, shade and

temperature, large woody debris, particulate matter)

in order to develop similar forest-dependent instream

functionality measures linked to LMS.

• Developed management plans and assessment

methods for a multi- and small-owner HCPs.
159

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Carbon Sequestration

Global warming is thought by many to be occurring

because of increases in atmospheric carbon associated

with combustion of fossil fuels. An embryonic marketplace for the sale of “carbon credits” from forests dedicated to carbon storage is developing. Adjustments to

forest management such as increased fertilization or

longer rotations can increase carbon storage potential.

For landowners to benefit from carbon credit sales

opportunities, assessing forest carbon fluctuations will

be needed. The RTI has collaborated with the Consortium for Research in Recyclable Industrial Materials

(CORRIM) to development carbon assessment software

to be used with forest inventory systems such as LMS. A

sample assessment of carbon storage in forest biomass

has been prepared for King County, Washington. Life

Cycle Analysis (LCA) is used to demonstrate the importance of carbon reduction contributions by forest management. The LCA is a cradle-to-grave evaluation of the

environmental implications of forest initiation, growth,

harvest, product streams, product substitutions, decay,

and other considerations. The CORRIM conducted years

of research that has now been connected, with the help of

RTI resources, to the LMS software so that LCA considerations will add new information quality to selection of

best management practices.

Forest Fire Risk Reduction

Large areas of forest land in the inland West are overstocked with small-diameter suppressed trees. These

forests have unprecedented fuel loads and are at a high

risk of catastrophic forest fire. Rural communities, most

at risk from forest fires, are often economically depressed.

However, removal of many small-diameter trees is known

to be costly. Opportunities to reduce costs and increase

fuel reduction activities are linked to such questions as:

(1) How might harvest units be designed to reduce or

eliminate operational cost deficits? (2) How might

evolving markets and increasing public interest in

cogeneration, carbon sequestration, and fire safety

investments influence values? (3) What are the marginal

costs of alternative residual density targets? (4) What are

the impacts on desired future environmental conditions

that result from harvest alternatives? (5) How might

answers to the above questions help administrators and

field personnel to better customize project design to fit

local forest and community needs? The RTI, working

with National Fire Plan partners, developed a parametric

sensitivity analysis to address the above questions for a

range of market and stand conditions that can be customized to local circumstances. Although more work is

needed, this preliminary analysis is providing the basis

for development of thinning/fuel reduction instructional

materials and training modules that better estimate

marginal tradeoffs associated with treatment alternatives.

Working with the USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs, RTI has

begun a training program for fire risk analysis and fuels

reduction planning on tribal forests.

Increased numbers of intense crown fires are symptomatic of a changed management paradigm, e.g., fire

suppression and insufficient attention to stand structure.

RTI:

• Evaluated the impact of alternative fuel reduction

treatments on fire risk.

• Developed tools linked to LMS that support

development of fire risk reduction strategies.

• Demonstrated that the benefits of fuel treatments that

reduce fire risk, when nonmarket benefits (saving

habitat, firefighting and relocation costs, fatalities,

facilities losses, carbon, and water) are included, are

much greater than the public cost of treatment.

• Demonstrated that archival evidence of preEuropean east-side forests can serve as a measure of

crowning potential for east-side forests. Developed

metrics will be used to provide guidance to land

managers in designing future landscapes to sustain

biodiversity goals and reduce fire hazard.
160

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Special Forest Products Quality Control

Markets in special forest products (SFPs) or NTFPs can

be better served if the quality, efficacy, and safety of

medicinal botanicals and herbal nutrient supplements

can be assured. High-quality and consistent SFPs have

customarily brought a higher market value. Clearly, the

harvesters need advanced technologies for quality

control and standardization for routine practice. However, owing to the traditionally high cost of such technologies, and overall low income among the rural SFP

community, these technologies are unaffordable. The

main objectives for the project were to (1) improve and

guarantee both sustainability and profitability of the

herbal medicine and dietary supplement industry by

implementing an affordable, easily available, standardized tannin analysis technology; (2) develop a database

on tannin content for several of the most profitable

medicinal herbs, such as St. John’s Wort and Echinacea;

and (3) provide front-line technological support for

Pacific Northwest SFP industries through scientific

recommendations aimed at the improvement of standardized growing, harvesting, and processing methods. The

RTI support for initial work was leveraged to secure

supplemental funding to convert laboratory bench-top

tannin assay procedures into a Tanalyzer Technology—

a hand-held digital device providing multiple sample

screening for tannin directly in the field.

Conclusions

Since its beginning in January 2000, RTI has trained

over 500 consultants, extension agents, tribal foresters,

rural schoolteachers, and family forest owners in the use

of forestry software products. Mentioned above are some,

but not all, of the projects undertaken by RTI. An interdisciplinary team comprising biologists, engineers,

programmers, silviculturists, GIS specialists, mensurationists, and economists has been assembled from

faculty, staff, and graduate students at the RTI centers

created by this unique partnership of Washington’s

premier resource science universities. More than 30

faculty members from University and Washington State

University have contributed to the rapid development of

RTI programs. Scholarships and research assistantships

have been provided to worthy students creating double

benefit. Research findings have been used by the state

legislature to understand the complexities of rural

forestry challenges and to support subsequent beneficial

policy adjustments. The RTI personnel have become

frequent presenters at association meetings, community

get-togethers, and symposia throughout the Pacific

Northwest.

English Equivalents

1 hectare (ha) = 2.47 acres

1 cubic meter (m3) = 35.3 cubic feet (ft3)

Literature Cited

Eddelson, J.; Lippke, B.R. 1999. Disparity in timber

rural vs. urban income in Washington State rising.

CINTRAFOR Resource Management and Environmental Impact Series. Fact Sheet 36. Seattle, WA:

University of Washington.

Larson, D. L. 2000. Draft Washington timber harvest—

1998. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of

Natural Resources.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service; U.S. Department of

Agriculture. 1997. Resources inventory report.

(www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/1997/

summary_report/).
161

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET: A Joint Internet-Based

Information Platform Transferring Forest Knowledge in the

Alpine Space

Reinhard Lässig,1 Martin Moritzi,2 Marcus Schaub,3and Roderich von Detten4

Abstract

In view of the various challenges affecting forests and

forest ecosystem management, the precious natural heritage of forests and forestry in the Alpine region is becoming increasingly imperiled. To deal with these challenges, the self-organized cooperation of all involved

partners in the field is indispensable. The transnational

cooperation of exchanging professional knowledge and

know-how is necessary to keep the natural heritage attractive, to maintain its management as economically

profitable, and to guarantee its protection. A broad

participation of all stakeholders is required.

In connection with storms, avalanches, and climate

change effects, for example, and in an environment of

structural transformation and economic challenges, it is

highly ambitious to manage forests in a multifunctional

way. To reach this target, professionals need up-to-date

knowledge that, in part, comes from forest research.

Compiling the supply of strictly user-oriented information is, sometimes, beyond the capacities of single

institutions. To obtain synergies, it is important to

combine and disseminate existing knowledge on a

transnational level.

1

 Forest scientist and science writer, Swiss Federal Institute for

Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, CH-8903 Birmensdorf,

Switzerland (corresponding author); Tel: +41 44 7392 389; e-mail:

reinhard.laessig@wsl.ch.

2

 Web editor, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape

Research, CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland.

3

 Forest scientist and translator, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest,

Snow and Landscape Research, CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland.

4

Forest scientist, Forest Research Institute of Baden-Württemberg,

D-79100 Freiburg i.Br., Germany.

In this context, the development of a multilingual,

Internet-based information platform enables central

cohesion and a supply of existing knowledge and knowhow. The Web site WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET5

 is intended

to be the first transnational Web site in Europe that aims

to supply practical knowledge on forests in a useroriented way. Based on the initiative of four research

institutes in southern Germany, Switzerland, and Austria,

this offer of information is being developed in a close

relationship of research and practice. The coordination

of knowledge transfer under the direct involvement of

user-groups thereby replaces the top-down approach with

methods of participation and dialogue between research

and practice.

Keywords: Forest research, knowledge transfer,

Internet, information platform, Central Europe.

Introduction

In supporting decisionmakers in forest administration,

applied research, and practical forest management

who face complex management decisions, the relevant

institutions in the broader alpine space (fig. 1) are confronted with specific challenges. To the same degree that

the existing problems exceed institutions and boundaries

at a general level, the supporting measures have to be

transboundary, user- and problem-focused. A cooperation

between the forest research institutes of the alpine space,

5 WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET was originally developed in

its German version, WWW.WALDWISSEN.NET. In this article, the

English name is used.
162

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

the state forest services of the involved countries, and

the primary federations of communal and private forest

owners is, by all means, necessary.

The necessity for improved transnational knowledge transfer arises from the specific tasks within which

forestry in the alpine space is confronted. The situation

can be characterized by specific and often demanding

conflicts in the main functions that forests are supposed

to fulfill (protection, recreation, and income), the decreasing relevance of forests as a factor of income and

employment, an ongoing crisis of earning capacities

of forest enterprises, and increasing pressure on highly

sensitive forest ecosystems in a rapidly changing

environment.

The preservation of healthy, efficient, and, at the

same time, profitable forests in the alpine region decisively depends on efficient and competent forest management; therefore, the invigorating and further development of forest management competence can be regarded

as a main task in the present and future. A sustainable

transnational knowledge transfer efficiently addresses the

main tasks in forestry:

• Forest management; commercialization

• Forest utilization and technology

• Law, politics, and public relations

• Natural risk management

• Biodiversity/protected areas

• Silviculture

• Forest protection

• Forest ecology, nutrition, and soil management

In the project “Knowledge Network Forestry in the

Alpine Space,” organizations that acquire knowledge

and their main user groups meet this challenge. Thus,

they agreed on this innovative joint project to allow

them a more direct and intensive exchange of professional knowledge and practical experience. The forest owners and experts play a key role in conserving

the manifold values of intact and healthy forests in the

alpine region as they manage the forests in a proper,

natural, and sustainable way. Therefore, stakeholders

such as forest owners associations, forestry societies,

and forest services are involved in this project.

Objectives

The main objective of the forest knowledge Web site is

to improve communication between forest research

institutions and forest managers. The overall aim is to

strengthen the specialized knowledge and the decisionmaking authority of actors in forestry in the alpine space

(fig. 1). As one of its activities, it has therefore built up a

user-focused information platform—a joint information

server called “WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET.”

The leading goals of the forest knowledge Web site

are to:

• Intensify knowledge transfer to practitioners

• Enhance communication between researchers and

practitioners

• Present more scientific results and products

internationally

Figure 1—The Alpine region has seven countries with more than

40 million residents and 100 million visitors annually from

numerous countries visiting the largest recreation area of Europe.

They benefit from the forest as a place of recreation, an attractive

landscape, or a protective mountain forest. Many of these forest

services are free of charge, or at least low in price, although the

maintenance of healthy, vigorous, and profitable forests is costly.

Therefore, a common goal is to strengthen an efficient and

competent forestry.
163

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

• Cooperate with forestry and forest owners

• Make the public more aware of forests and forest

research

• Use synergies and bundle informational power of

the participating organizations

The target group of this project primarily includes

specialists who appear as actors in forest management:

members of the state forest services and experts in or

owners of communal and private forest enterprises.

Further potential addressees include interested conservationists or experts from nongovernmental organizations

connected with forestry, as well as teachers, scientists,

etc., with basic knowledge in forest management. No

limitations are made in terms of possible target groups,

as the system is conceived as accessible without special

authorization.

Concept and Realization

The buildup of the information and communication platform WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET originates from an initiative of the directors of the Bavarian Institute for Forest

and Forestry (LWF) in Freising; the Forest Research Institute of Baden-Württemberg (FVA) in Freiburg i.Br.;

the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL) in Birmensdorf; and the Austrian

Federal Research and Education Centre for Forest,

Natural Hazards and Landscape (BFW) in Vienna. In

2002, these institutions decided to increase practiceoriented knowledge within their institutes and make it

easily available to their target audience while facilitating the transnational exchange of know-how. A task

force of experts from these four research institutes

developed the concept for WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET

that was transferred via the Internet platform to the

public. At the WSL, the needs of the target audience

were evaluated and selected forest practitioners were

surveyed leading to WWW.WALDWISSEN.CH, a prototype

of WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET. With an online test at

WWW.WALDWISSEN.CH, visitors could participate in an

electronic survey over a period of 5 months. The output

and the verbal feedback of this survey indicated a high

customer satisfaction and a real desire for a knowledge

platform for forest practitioners.

In 2004, on behalf of the FVA, LWF, BFW, and

WSL, the transnational expert information system

WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET was developed by the WSL

section Informatics, based on the open source ContentManagement-System “Silva,” a product by Infrae (http://

www.infrae.com)—a software development company

based in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Silva is based on

the open source Web application server “Zope” (http://

www.zope.org) written in Python, an object-oriented

scripting language. Silva as user interface separates the

public WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET layout from the editing

area. Features include a multiversion workflow system,

access management, and integral WYSIWYG editor

(What You See Is What You Get). Content is stored in

the programming language XML, independent of layout

and presentation. The central server, which makes all

the expert contributions available is located at WSL,

but editing is decentralized via the Internet. On 16

February 2005, the partner organizations presented

WWW.WALDWISSEN.NET, the German version of

WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET, to the public.

Public relations is at the beginning of the planned

intensification of the knowledge transfer complemented

with a coordinated offer of activities during the next 3

years. Therewith, it is the first time that a transnational

tool for exchanging professional knowledge and experience will be made available to the forestry community in

the alpine region. Knowledge that so far has only been

available on a local or regional scale will be easily and

transnationally accessible and used via the World Wide

Web. In addition, the alpine-wide collaboration aims to

make the population more sensitive and perceptive to

the various problems, risks, and solutions in forestry by

informing on a more frequent basis about forestry issues.
164

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Content

The new Internet Platform WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET (fig.

2) gives the user condensed knowledge about forestry

and is easy to browse with a mouse click. At the end

of April 2006, 1,150 articles with over 4,000 pictures

and graphs were online. The unique quality about this

platform, especially for the Central European forestry

community, is the condensed offer of quality-assured

knowledge out of the field of forestry from the seven

alpine space countries. Many of the easy-to-understand

and attractively illustrated articles are processed according to journalistic guidelines and refer to over 2,000 extended, detailed, and pdf-formatted available articles and

links (fig. 2). As shown below, the entire pool of knowledge is divided into 11 areas of expertise. The subjects

are further divided on a second navigation level (fig. 3):

Forest ecology: Forest protection:

Tree species Abiotic damages

Biodiversity Insects

Soil science and site mapping Invasive species

Climate Competitive vegetation

Nature reserves Rodents

Plant ecology Plant protectants

Fungi and lichens Fungi and nematodes

Animal ecology Pest control

Forest ecosystems

Silviculture and planning: Forests and society:

Agroforestry Research programs

Tending Forest history

Silvicultural systems Balance of services

Forest planning Guiding principles and criteria

Risk management Nature protection

Plant production Public relations

Protection and mountain forest Law

Forest genetics Nonmarket goods

Transformation of forest Forest ownership

Regeneration Forest programs

Growth and yield

Forest and wildlife: Environment and landscape:

Hunting practice Carbon dioxide and climate protection

Hunting law Landscaping and spatial development

Wildlife biology technology

Game damage Forests and landscape Management

Wildlife management Water protection

Natural hazards: Inventory and monitoring:

Erosion Ecosystem monitoring

Flood Forecast models

Crisis management Forest development

Snow Forest inventory

Protection forests

Rockfall

Torrent and torrent regulation
165

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Timber and markets: Management:

Forest products Controlling and operation

Wood energy Analysis

Timber storage and conservation Profit and loss account

Timber markets Subsidy

Transport and logistics Investment

Raw timber and classification Marketing

Processing and technology Organization/employees

Planning and control

Monitoring systems

Associations

Forest technology:

Information technology

Forest machinery

Timber harvesting

Calculation aids

Impact assessment

Forest labour

Forest roads/opening
166

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Figure 2—Homepage of WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET.
167

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

There are, for example, findings and practitioners’

experiences available without any intensive searching,

as well as information about the processing and stocking

of windblown or bark beetle lumber, the most recent forest technical developments, rare animal species, medical

plants and immigrating organisms, and current problems

of hunting (fig. 3). The home page is updated on a

weekly basis to stay up to date and attractive.

Alternatively, unique documents may be found

within seconds with the help of a full text search, and the

articles may be filtered as to place of origin, language, or

type of document. In the near future, several subject files

will be put together to provide the online user with background information about the current state of art, particular themes, and the most recent events. The subject files

and the single subject pages are linked to allow the interested user to continue to click through related pages.

The Web site WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET offers contributions in French, Italian, Slovenian, English, and

German even though not all articles are translated into

all languages. The navigation and some examples have

been translated into all languages since February 2005.

Currently, articles with German content still dominate.

More articles will be translated between 2006 and 2007,

and the multilingualism poses a great challenge regarding personnel and finances. The selection of the articles

to be translated is based on the anticipated regional

interests of the users.

Since 2004, four editorial offices in Freising,

Freiburg, Vienna, and Birmensdorf have been editing

the contributions for WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET. In the

future, the research institutes in Grenoble (France),

Ljubljana (Slovenia), and Villazzano (Italy) will provide

articles as well. Further research institutes, in particular

from Germany, have showed their interest in collaboration shortly after WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET went online.

Forest Economy Switzerland, the Swiss Forestry Society,

and SILVIVA Environmental Education, that represent

large user groups from the areas of forest ownership,

forestry, and educational professions, provide extensive

Figure 3—Topics of WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET.
168

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

knowledge, which is incorporated into the system of

WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET via the editorial office of the

WSL. These organizations will provide, among others,

numerous practice-oriented articles from professional

journals. In addition, the Swiss partners will participate

in the organization of seminars and transboundary

excursions.

Transnational articles written by well-recognized

scientists from the various research stations assist in

ensuring the direction and professional quality of the

knowledge transfer and define the thematic and current

emphasis.

Future

On February 16, 2005, the partner organizations in

Vaduz (Liechtenstein) presented the Internet platform

WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET to the public. The presentation

was scheduled for the beginning of the planned intensification of transferring knowledge from research to practice and will complement a coordinated offer of activities

and events during the next 3 years. Herewith, a transnational offer of knowledge and experience exchange will

be available to the forestry community in the alpine

space. Knowledge that was so far only available on a

local or regional scale will be able to be used efficiently

and transnationally via the Internet. In March 2005,

more than 12,000 users visited the Web site; in April

2006, it was already more than 35,000. Furthermore,

the alpine-wide collaboration will increasingly inform

the population about forest issues and make the public

more perceptive to the various problems, risks, and

solutions in the area of forestry.

Being an information platform at its online start,

WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET will be enhanced to become a

communication platform in the near future. Forest owners

and, in general, people focused on forestry will then be

able to exchange their information at one or several

forums and pass on their experiences or suggest forest

management problems for discussion. An alpine-wide

calendar of events will describe meetings of differing

size and topic, seminars, workshops, excursions, and

other activities.

To assure forestry people and forest owners are addressed in a user- and issue-oriented way, the persons in

charge of WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET will take the needs of

the user groups into consideration as accurately as possible. Needs assessments, surveys, and workshops were

recently conducted. Once they have been analyzed, they

will enable a direct exchange about aims and necessary

measures of the knowledge transfer in the future.

WWW.FORESTKNOWLEDGE.NET will be extended continuously by the four research institutes mentioned above.

Integrated in the KnowForAlp-initiative, the Internet

portal will be significantly co-financed by the European

Union within the framework of the Interreg IIIB-program

until the end of 2007. The efforts of the four Swiss partners are supported by the Velux foundation, Zurich, and

the Swiss Agency for the Environment, Berne. The Web

site is accessible on the Internet free of charge.
169

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

The Landscape Management System: Emerging Technology for

Integrated Forestry Applications

James B. McCarter,1 Christopher E. Nelson,2 Kevin R. Ceder,3 Kevin W. Zobrist1

Abstract

Natural resource professionals face the staggering task

of assimilating vast amounts of disparate information to

coordinate management activities and predict interactions along broad temporal and spatial scales. Further

complicating such an undertaking are dynamic changes

in natural conditions and in public values. The Rural

Technology Initiative at the College of Forest Resources,

University of Washington, in cooperation with the USDA

Forest Service and the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, has developed a publicly-available

computer program, the Landscape Management System

(LMS). The LMS can process vast amounts of information to evaluate stand- and landscape-scale silviculture

options for short- and long-term forest planning. The

LMS system assists land managers by accurately modeling changes in forest-land outputs in response to variable

management influences and goals. The software provides

a platform for the integration of component capabilities

that include growth and yield models, interactive stand

treatment programs, tabular and graphical analytical

outputs, and stand and landscape visualization programs. Data sources necessary for LMS include stand

inventory information (tree-based measurements), landscape data (slope, aspect, elevation, site quality), and

geographic information system spatial data (stand

1 Research scientist, Rural Technology Initiative, College of Forest

Resources, University of Washington, Box 352100, Seattle, WA

98195-2100; e-mail: jmac@u.washington.edu.

2 Landscape Management System Developer, College of Forest

Resources, University of Washington, Box 352100, Seattle, WA

98195-2100.

3 Forest technology specialist, College of Forest Resources,

University of Washington, Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195-2100.

boundaries, streams, roads, etc.). The LMS can be used to

project stands and landscapes forward in time, predicting

potential future stand and landscape forest conditions

including treatment of stands through harvesting, regeneration, and other activities to simulate potential management practices. The LMS is designed to provide a

user-friendly “click-and-go” interface. This powerful

forestry software is available for use by individuals

with minimum computer skills and limited financial

resources. Consequently, LMS has proven to be beneficial not only as a powerful analysis tool for forestry

professionals but also as a communication tool with

stakeholder groups embarked on the often conflictvulnerable process of consensus building. Visualization and the analytical information provided by LMS

leads to better communication between various stakeholder groups. The LMS is available for download free

to the public thanks to a forestry research partnership

among the University of Washington, Yale University,

and USDA Forest Service. The Web site address is

http://lms.cfr.washington.edu/.

Keywords: Forest management, growth modeling,

visualization, software integration.

Introduction

The management of natural resources is complex, and

protection of those resources requires an increasing

amount of analysis. Processes, applications, and communication tools need to be developed to streamline the

development and evaluation of management plans for

our forested landscapes. Management planning can be

improved by software systems capable of automating the

information flow between various disparate applications.

These software systems should provide a variety of
170

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

outputs that improve the communication of the consequences of our management actions. The Landscape

Management System (LMS) is one such system (fig. 1).

Description of Landscape Management

System

The LMS integrates forest inventory information, growth

models, visualization, and analytical tools into a framework for investigating stand- and landscape-level management alternatives (McCarter 2001, McCarter et al.

1998). It automates the tasks of formatting inventory

information, sending the information to growth models,

implementing treatments to simulate management or

disturbance, formatting information for visualization,

and providing base and summarized information to

analytical tools for further analysis.

The LMS integrates existing growth and yield

models and visualization tools with focus on the flow

of information back and forth among component tools.

The Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) (Dixon 2002,

Wykoff 1986, Wykoff et al. 1982) and Organon (Hann

2003, Hann et al. 1997) are the growth models used by

LMS. The software uses the Stand Visualization System

(McGaughey 1997) for stand-level visualization. For

landscape-level visualization, LMS uses EnVision

(McGaughey 1998, 1997; Wilson and McGaughey

2000).

The LMS facilitates communication of management

consequences by providing a variety of tools that present

the results of management decisions. Use of visualization is an effective method for evaluating how forests

change in response to growth and management. Visualization creates pictures, which allow for nontechnical

audiences to evaluate and discuss how forests are expected to change. The LMS also provides a wide variety

of tabular information that can be used to evaluate the

outcomes from a quantitative perspective. The combination of tabular, graphical, and visualization outputs

provide a broad spectrum of options when trying to

communicate how forests are changing.

Development and support of LMS has been funded

through a research partnership between the USDA Forest

Service, the University of Washington, and Yale University. The majority of the funding was provided by the

Forest Service through Research and Development,

National Forest System, and State and Private Forestry.

Additional aspects of the software were developed

through individual research projects or case studies with

federal agencies, state agencies, and private companies.

Data Requirements

Use of LMS requires a considerable amount of information about forested landscapes. This information is

organized around stands of similar ecological and historical conditions. The LMS requires stand-level and

tree-level information for each area to be considered by

the system.

The stand-level information is used by growth

models to localize predictions of growth for trees in a

specific inventory. The stand-level information does not

generally change over time. This information includes

site quality variables (i.e., slope, aspect, elevation, site

index, and habitat type), stand age, and stand area.

The tree-level information used with LMS consists

of a tree list for each stand on the landscape. The tree list

contains information on individual trees with expansion

factors for each record that represents the number of trees

per acre. This information is best acquired from forest

inventory plots but can also be derived from summarized

diameter class data. The tree list must include species,

diameter, and trees per acre as a minimum. Providing

height and crown ratio will improve simulation results,

but the values can be automatically estimated by using

the provided growth models.

The LMS can use additional spatial information to

support landscape-level visualization. The landscape

visualization tools require a representation of elevation

data (elevation model) and a map of stand boundaries as
171

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

the minimum for creating visualizations. Additional

spatial information can be displayed in the visualization

if desired.

History of LMS

The LMS was first created in 1994 to automate many of

the computing tasks necessary while teaching a broader

approach to stand-level management to university and

midcareer continuing education students. The software

has evolved to address emerging management issues

and to keep pace with component and Windows updates

(table 1).

The LMS 1.0 was developed for Microsoft

Windows® 3.1. This version is no longer available or

supported. One of the features that users liked was the

buttons used for running the application. The LMS 1.0

successfully integrated growth models and visualization

tools into a single, but somewhat awkward interface. The

application had limited flexibility, and it was difficult to

enhance or modify the system. It used many small text

files for storing inventory information, which resulted in

the use of an excessive amount of disk space. It was difficult to get inventory data into the system. There was no

feedback between components of the system, and errors

were not reported to the user. The LMS 1.0 was a proofof-concept application that demonstrated that a system

integrating tree-list growth models and visualization

tools could be constructed and had utility.

The LMS 2.0 represents a rewrite of the original

LMS system and many components to move the software

beyond Microsoft Windows 3.1 to Microsoft Windows

NT® and beyond. The LMS 2.x contains the same basic

features as the previous version integrating growth and

yield models, visualization, and analytical tools. The

LMS 2.0 includes the FVS and Organon growth models.

It uses SVS and EnVision for stand- and landscape-level

visualization. It is integrated with Microsoft Excel®

for output tables. It also includes the Inventory Wizard

Figure 1—Landscape Management System conceptual design.
172

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

(Zobrist et al. 2004) for data input and a series of embedded analyses (Carbon, Economatic, Wildlife Habitat,

etc.). The LMS 2.0 is limited in the size of portfolios

that it can process because of the text files used to store

inventory information. It remains difficult to get inventory data into the system. Program enhancements require

major modifications to the software, limiting the ability

to enhance the system without affecting other portions of

the system.

The LMS 3.0 represents a new approach to integrating system components providing enhanced simulation

and treatment capabilities and supporting multiple

interfaces, application automation, and tabular outputs

to Excel or Access. The LMS 3.0 can process larger

landscapes, running growth simulations more than five

times faster than previous versions, growing 100 stands

one growth cycle in less than 15 seconds on a 1.5 GHz

computer.

Enhancements to LMS 3.0

The latest version of LMS represents a new approach to

the problem of integration of the system components.

The overall objective of the system has been to integrate

a variety of applications, none of which were designed

to communicate with one another. For LMS 3.0 a more

flexible, modular, robust, scaleable, and supportable

system is being designed.

All components of the system are now being developed as Windows Dynamic Linked Libraries. This allows

for the isolation and encapsulation of functions within

the system into the individual components. The component manager automatically links available components

into the running interface. Each component is responsible for its own configuration and any componentspecific data. Base components provide portfolio and

inventory (tree, snag, understory) information and interfaces to a core of growth models, treatment, visualization, and tabular output components. This modular

design also makes multiple interfaces possible. Three

interfaces are under development: default (full featured),

K-12 (simplified for teaching), and ArcGIS® (provide

LMS functions from within GIS software).

To improve simulation performance and accommodate larger landscapes, all native file formats in LMS

3.0 are binary files. This provides better speed (reduces

parsing of text files) and security at the cost of some file

size. With hard drive space becoming relatively inexpensive, disk space is no longer a limitation. The system is

also being designed to minimize file creation and activity. These changes have resulted in an increase in

simulation speed from 5 minutes 47 seconds for LMS 2.0

to 1 minute 13 seconds for LMS 3.0 for a 200-stand, 30-

year simulation on a 1.5-GHz computer. Enhancements

to simulation capabilities include the ability to accommodate a whole-tree growth model, inclusion of additional growth models, increased treatment capabilities,

and the addition of pre- and postmodels for additional

processing of simulation results.

The new version of LMS has two methods for creating output tables: basic and advanced. Tabular output

can be sent to Microsoft Excel® or Microsoft Access®.

Basic Analysis tables are predefined tables implemented

by using the Python (http://www.python.org/) scripting

Table 1—Landscape Management System versions

and dates released

LMS version Release date

LMS 1.0 1994-2000

LMS 2.0 2000-2005

LMS 2.0 Aug 2000

LMS 2.0.42 Feb 2001

LMS 2.0.45 Jun 2002

... ...

LMS 2.0.45 Release 9 Nov 2004

LMS 2.0.45 Release 10 Apr 2005

LMS 3.0 2005-Present

LMS 3.0 - Beta 3 Apr 2005

LMS 3.0 - Beta 4 May 2005

LMS 3.0 - Beta 5 Aug 2005

LMS 3.0 Dec 2005
173

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

language. Additional basic analysis tables can be added

to LMS but require programming capability by the table

developer. The Python script includes an interface

definition, which indicates to LMS which information

(stand level, tree inventory, etc.) should be retrieved for

use by the script. The script then processes the requested

information and returns the resulting tabular information

back to LMS for display.

Advanced analysis tables allow users to create their

own tables or modify existing tables containing any variable known by LMS. Advanced analysis tables can be

created with basic inventory information (stand, trees,

snags, and understory) or summarized information.

New tables are created selecting from available variables, no programming is required. Both basic and

advanced analysis tables can be customized (add tables,

remove tables, modify variables in tables) for each user

of the computer allowing for users to have their own

unique and customized list of analysis tables available

for their use.

The LMS comes with a series of companion

tools that provide data entry and advanced analysis

capabilities. The Inventory Wizard (Zobrist et al. 2004)

guides users through the process of assembling the forest

inventory data needed to run LMS. Field cards can be

printed and used for data collection. The data can then

be entered into the computer through a series of userfriendly on-screen forms. The data are then automatically

formatted and loaded into LMS. The Inventory Wizard

has been instrumental in the adoption of LMS by

nonindustrial small forest landowners.

The LMS-FFE add-on provides the ability to evaluate fire risk on forested landscapes. The Fire and Fuels

Extension (FFE) (Reinhardt and Crookston 2003) has

been developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service and linked to the FVS. The LMS supports

the use of the FFE to FVS (FFE-FVS). The LMS-FFE addon includes FVS variant files with FFE support, the LMSFFE Configuration Tool (for configuring the use of FFE),

additional LMS table for FFE outputs, and the Fire

Scoping Tool. The Fire Scoping Tool is used to examine

summarized forest inventory information, stand attributes, and fire potentials to better understand potential

fire risks and their relationship to stand structures on the

landscape. It allows the user to identify stand types that

represent high fire risk and then to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments to reduce the fire risk of those stands.

The LMS includes a variety of tables to evaluate

the impacts of forest management activities on wildlife.

Two approaches to modeling habitat impacts are used to

create LMS habitat analysis modules. First, habitat suitability modeling provides an estimate of habitat quality

(an index from 0.0 to1.0) and quantity (i.e., area of the

landscape consolidated into a single metric known as a

“habitat unit”) for each species of interest. Additionally,

structure-based habitat models associate particular species with forest structural conditions. Habitat suitability

models are analyzed to assess the tradeoffs in habitat

units, whereas structure-based habitat models can be

used to estimate abundance/shortage of structure types

(and by proxy habitat quantities) across large landscapes

over time for alternative management approaches.

The LMS also includes a biomass and carbon life

cycle assessment analysis to assess forest carbon storage,

substitution, and displacement over time under different

management alternatives. Estimates of changes in the

amount of carbon stored over time in the standing forest

are calculated by using biomass to carbon conversion

factors specific by species for tree bole, bark, foliage,

limbs, and roots. Estimates of carbon stored in harvested

wood products are also calculated. Estimates of carbon

emitted to the atmosphere from harvesting and manufacturing operations are considered as reductions to carbon

stored in wood products. Estimated as well is the amount

of carbon not emitted owing to displacement of fossil

fuels in energy generation by wood used in a wood

boiler, and substitution of wood for steel construction

materials.

The LMS includes an easy-to-use economic and

financial analysis. Economatic takes management

simulation data directly from LMS and automatically

computes a variety of economic values, including
174

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

discounted cashflow, equivalent annual annuity, soil

expectation value, forest value, and internal rate of return. Users can customize costs, prices, tax rates, and

other input parameters. Results are summarized at both

the stand and landscape level in a series of tables and

charts. Economatic is implemented by using a Python

program that summarizes inventory information and then

inserts the results into a Microsoft Excel template.

Outreach and Technology Transfer

The LMS outreach and technical transfer activities are

a fundamental component of the total effort relating to

the product for over 5 years. The objectives of these outreach and technology transfer activities are to increase

product usage, improve technical product quality, augment research efforts by users, catalyze synergy across

user groups, enrich academic teaching, and secure funding for the product’s future development and technical

support.

Audiences

In general, it is believed that use of the product can

make a measurable improvement in all areas of natural

resource land management. With this paradigm in place,

the audiences regularly targeted for use of LMS are far

reaching. They include undergraduate and graduate

students at various universities; the faculty members

associated with these student teachings; researchers at

governmental, academic, and nongovernmental organizations; natural resource conference and symposia

attendees; land management agencies on state and federal levels; land management units within tribal governments; for-profit and not-for-profit land management

corporations; family forest owners; and K-12 educators

and their students. Some users of LMS are outside North

America and some apply LMS to international land

management projects.

Methods

Venues and avenues where LMS is showcased and taught

are broad. Developing effective and cost-effective technology transfer and outreach opportunities to a wide

audience has required both traditional and innovative

approaches. Below is a list of these approaches, followed

by brief descriptions of those that have had the greatest

overall impact on product dissemination efforts, and

quality improvement and product development.

• Promotion through Rural Technology Initiative

(RTI) and LMS Web pages

• Workshops

• Demonstrations

• Consultations and customized in-service training

• Training sessions

• Educational partnerships

• Technical support by phone, in person, and by

e-mail

• Professional continuing education

• Graduate and undergraduate teaching

• Conference/symposia presentations and posters

• Published papers, journal articles, extension

publications

• Internet broadcasts—streaming video

• Rural Technology Initiative annual reviews.

Demonstrations

Rural Technology Initiative staff makes over 50 demonstrations of LMS and related applications each year.

These demonstrations are to university classes, scientific

and professional meetings, RTI technical reviews, interested cooperators, midcareer professional training, forestry consultants, landowners, and others. There are

also a variety of streaming video presentations available

(www.ruraltech.org) that discuss various aspects and

analyses by using LMS. These demonstrations are used

primarily to raise awareness of the existence and capabilities of the software. A number of demonstrations have

led to subsequent training sessions customized to requesting persons or organizations.
175

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Training Sessions

The RTI has been sponsoring 8 to 10 training sessions

per year on LMS and related technologies. These training sessions are typically hands-on sessions that last

2 days. These have targeted small landowners, state

agencies, tribes, and federal agencies. In addition, we

have partnered with Washington State University Extension to present inventory and LMS at coached forest

stewardship planning sessions to help small private

owners. Long-term impacts from training sessions are

mixed, with many participants not able to take advantage of the software because of time or technical constraints. Some feedback is very encouraging, however,

with stories of landowners using LMS to make pictures

of how they want their forest to look and providing those

to their consulting foresters. In addition, a number of

management plans have been developed by family forest

landowners with LMS.

Educational Partnerships

The RTI has developed educational partnerships to

further forestry education and assist in the use of LMS

in education. We have worked with Community Colleges

(Green River, Spokane, Peninsula, Wenatchee Valley,

Skagit Valley, Heritage, Northwest Indian College,

Mount Hood, Central Oregon, Chemeketa) and university extension departments (Penn State University

Cooperative Extension and Outreach, Washington State

University Cooperative Extension) to deliver improved

education experiences using the software. In addition, we

are working with Yale University, Pisgah Forest Institute

(http://www.brevard.edu/pfi/), and Cradle of Forestry in

America (http://www.cradleofforestry.com/) to develop a

simplified interface more appropriate for school-age

children (K-12).

The LMS has also been used for teaching or research

at the following: University of Florida, University of

Maine, University of Massachusetts, Michigan Technical

University, University of Missouri, University of New

Brunswick, Pennsylvania State University, University of

Washington, Washington State University, West Virginia

University, and Yale University.

Technical Support

Technical support is provided to the growing number of

universities, community colleges, state agencies, federal

agencies, tribes, timber companies, and small landowners

who use the system. The LMS is supported by phone and

email. The RTI currently has three staff members that

answer LMS technical support questions on a part-time

basis. Over 200 consultations take place each year with

questions including CD-ROM requests, installation

issues, capability questions, usage questions, data

conversion issues, documentation improvements, bug

reports, and feature requests.

Evaluation and Product Evolution

Methods used to evaluate the quality of the product and

the efficacies of outreach and technology transfer have

been both formal and informal. Those that have provided

significant information about the product and outreach

efforts are:

• Post workshop evaluations

• Professional continuing education evaluations

• Academic teaching of graduate and undergraduate

students

• Educator feedback

• User emails originating as product technical support

• Anecdotal evidence

• Market research

Users of the product are, for the most part, quite

forthcoming with their feedback about the product

usability, technical “glitches,” value of its outputs, and

potential for improvements. All of these bits of information, whether through emails, personal conversations, or

formal evaluations, combine into a data set that is used

when strategically planning the evolution of LMS both

in the short and long term.
176

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

There are a number of commercial products that are

designed to accomplish a subset of the outputs that LMS

offers. Many of these products are routinely promoted at

conferences and technology fairs, as well as in the form

of advertisements in journals, magazines, and via email

promotion. Users of these products often describe what

those products can and cannot do compared to LMS.

This information is obviously considered valuable from

an LMS product development perspective. However,

because clients who have made an investment in such a

product are not likely to discontinue its use, consideration is given to how LMS can be used in collaboration

with these products.

Challenges to Technology Transfer

The first and greatest challenge to LMS, on all levels, is

the level of computing access that is available to users.

Windows 2000 or newer operating system running on a

Pentium III 800 Mhz. or faster, 128MB RAM minimum,

and 60MB hard disk is recommended. In additional,

super video graphics array or better video hardware

with a minimum of 32MB of memory with 2D hardware acceleration for stand-level visualization and 3D

OpenGL hardware support for landscape visualization

is recommended. These operating system and hardware

requirements are not excessive for new computers, but

many members of the target audience may be limited by

their existing computer resources and may not be able to

invest in new hardware.

The second challenge that faces users of any computer-based tool is their comfort and experience using

computer applications in general. The LMS requires

some level of familiarity with several software products

such as Microsoft Excel. To make the most effective use

of LMS, a comprehensive understanding of Excel and

many of its data analysis features is needed. In addition,

the ability to use graphical and presentation software can

greatly improve the presentation of results provided by

LMS.

Finally, all software development efforts can be derailed quickly when having to rely on a shifting operating system platform with feature and security enhancements introduced on a regular basis. Any software that

hopes to stay current and usable in today’s evolving

computer environment needs continual testing and

adjusting to keep it usable as operating environments

evolve.

Challenges to Outreach

Some audiences are literally hard to reach; rural landowners by their very nature are rural. Laboratory teaching environments are in high demand and access to them

can be limited. Data sets provided by LMS learners, no

matter how robust, are often not immediately compatible

with what is required in LMS. Data collection and

cleaning efforts must be expended prior to coming to

an LMS training session if the experience is to be fully

successful.

Areas for Outreach and Technology Transfer

Improvement

More can and should be done to assure that outreach

and technology transfer of LMS is comprehensive and

effective. Funding limitations prevent much of this work

from taking place. Without regard to the barrier that

funding creates, a short “wish list” of desired evaluation

methods include:

• Pre- and postevaluations that measure distinct

learning parameters

• Feedback from users’ interactions with online

tutorials

• General surveys of user groups on specific utilization

and features

• Survey users’ levels of technology access to

determine how best to support their LMS utilization

• Independent evaluation of LMS from the user’s

perspective
177

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Conclusions

The LMS is proving to be a useful platform for comparative analysis of alternative management approaches.

It provides a simplified interface to growth and yield

modeling, allowing more use of these technologies.

The integration of visualization software with LMS is a

powerful tool for communicating the impacts of management decisions on forest stands and landscapes. It has

become very useful in educational environments where

concepts of land management can be demonstrated by

using visualizations and the changing forest conditions

simulated over time. Additional analyses represented by

the LMS companion tools are becoming increasingly

important as more demands are placed on our natural

resources. The development of more effective ways to

move inventory information into the system, improved

evaluation of growth estimates, and delivering desired

technical support and outreach functions continue to be

challenges.

Literature Cited

Dixon, G.E. 2002. Essential FVS: a user’s guide to the

Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal report. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Forest Management Service Center. 196 p.

Hann, D.W. 2003. ORGANON user’s manual, edition

7.0. Corvallis, OR: Department of Forest Resources,

Oregon State University. 129 p.

Hann, D.W.; Hester, A.S.; Olsen, C.L. 1997. ORGANON

user’s manual: edition 6.0. Corvallis, OR: Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University.

133 p.

McCarter, J.B. 2001. Landscape Management System

(LMS): background, methods, and computer tools

for integrating forest inventory, GIS, growth and

yield, visualization and analysis for sustaining

multiple forest objectives. Seattle, WA: University

of Washington. 101 p. dissertation.

McCarter, J.B.; Wilson, J.S.; Baker, P.J.; Moffett, J.L.;

Oliver, C.D. 1998. Landscape management through

integration of existing tools and emerging technologies. Journal of Forestry. 96: 17–23.

McGaughey, R. 1998. Technique for visualizing the

appearance of forest operations. Journal of Forestry.

96: 9–14.

McGaughey, R.J. 1997. Visualizing forest stand

dynamics using the stand visualization system. In

ACSM/ASPRS annual convention and exposition.

Seattle, WA: American Society for Photogrammetry

and Remote Sensing: 248–257.

Reinhardt, E.D.; Crookston, N.L. 2003. The Fire and

Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator.

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-116. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station. 209 p.

Wilson, J.S.; McGaughey, R.J. 2000. Presenting

landscape-scale forest information: What is sufficient

and what is appropriate? Journal of Forestry. 98:

21–27.

Wykoff, W.R. 1986. Supplement to the user’s guide for

the Stand Prognosis Model—version 5.0. Gen. Tech.

Rep. INT-208. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research

Station. 36 p.

Wykoff, W.R.; Crookston, N.L.; Stage, A.R. 1982. User’s

Guide to the Stand Prognosis Model. Gen. Tech. Rep.

INT-133. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 231 p.

Zobrist, K.W.; McCarter, J.B.; Hanley, D.P. 2004.

Inventory Wizard: a new tool that makes it easy to

get started with the Landscape Management System.

Extension Bulletin EB1983. Seattle, WA:

Washington State University Cooperative Extension.

8 p.
178

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726
179

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

The Wildland-Urban Interface Professional Development Program

Martha C. Monroe,1 L. Annie Hermansen-Báez,2 Lauren McDonell,3 Edward Macie4

Introduction

“Changing Roles: A Wildland-Urban Interface Professional Development” program is a set of training

modules designed to provide new tools and needed

information to natural resource professionals working

in interface areas in the Southern United States. The

wildland-urban interface is any area where increased

human influence and land-use conversion are changing

natural goods, services, and management. The Southern

Wildland-Urban Interface Assessment by the USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, found that

natural resource professionals often feel frustrated and

sometimes helpless in the face of rapidly changing land

use in the interface (Macie and Hermansen 2002). The

complex issues in the interface affect how interface forests can be managed, how natural resource professionals

communicate and work with interface residents and community decisionmakers, and how managers respond to

and assist the development of local land-use decisions

and regulations that affect natural resources.

The Program

To provide resource professionals with the skills needed

to help them respond to interface challenges, the USDA

Forest Service’s Southern Center for Wildland-Urban

Interface Research and Information partnered with the

University of Florida, School of Forest Resources and

Conservation and the Southern Group of State Foresters

to create a professional development program. The

training program includes four modules: (1) introduction

to the range and complexity of wildland-urban interface

Abstract

The dynamic characteristics of natural resource issues

in the wildland-urban interface demand new skills from

natural resource professionals. To help provide these

skills, the USDA Forest Service, Southern Center for

Wildland-Urban Interface Research and Information

partnered with the University of Florida, School of Forest Resources, the Southern Group of State Foresters, and

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to create “Changing

Roles: A Wildland-Urban Interface Professional

Development” program. The program is designed for

natural resource professionals working in the interface.

It consists of four training modules: (1) interface issues

and connections, (2) managing interface forests, (3) participating in land-use decisions, and (4) communicating

with interface residents and leaders. The modules are

being used by natural resource agencies across the South

to help them solve challenging interface problems.

Keywords: Wildland-urban interface, training,

professional development, natural resource agencies.

1 Associate professor, University of Florida, School of Forest

Resources and Conservation, P.O. Box 110410, Gainesville, FL

32611.

2

Center manager, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Center for Wildland-Urban Interface Research and

Information, P.O. Box 110806, Gainesville, FL 32611.

3 Project coordinator, University of Florida, School of Forest

Resources and Conservation, P.O. Box 110806, Gainesville, FL

32611; Tel: 352-378-2159; e-mail: mcdonell@ifas.ufl.edu.

4

Team leader, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Center for Wildland-Urban Interface Research and

Information, P.O. Box 110806, Gainesville, FL 32611.
180

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

issues, (2) communication skills for working with

interface residents and community planners and leaders,

(3) strategies for influencing the development of local

policies and plans that affect natural resources, and (4)

tools for effectively managing natural resources in the

wildland-urban interface, particularly for enhancing

forest health and meeting multiple landowner objectives.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service produced a video

supplement to introduce training participants to wildland-urban interface issues. The video also serves as an

outreach tool for resource professionals working with

interface landowners.

Each of the training modules includes a trainer’s

guide; PowerPoint®

 presentations; case studies with

examples of challenges, success stories, and scenarios

from across the South; fact sheets with important points

for participants; interactive exercises that enable participants to apply what they learn; and evaluation materials.

The program is designed to be flexible, allowing trainers

to select materials that meet their needs and enabling

them to design programs of various lengths. The program

will be distributed to state forestry agencies and other

natural resource agencies across the Southern United

States. It was designed to be flexible, allowing trainers

to select materials that are most relevant and appropriate

for their needs. Trainers can put together an introductory

2-hour program or a more comprehensive week-long

course, depending on their needs and time available.

Many of the materials are also suitable for using with

other audiences such as extension agents, landowners,

or community leaders.

The program materials are available for download

from interfacesouth.org, the Web site of the Southern

Center for Wildland-Urban Interface Research and Information. The Web site also provides trainers and participants with additional opportunities for feedback and a

forum to share how the materials are being used. This

encourages trainers to exchange ideas, learn from other’s

experiences, and maximize the value obtained from

using the materials.

“Changing Roles” is designed to provide essential

skills to enable natural resource professionals to respond

to the challenges of a rapidly changing landscape. By

working with landowners and assisting local leaders with

community development and resource management decisions, resource professionals can help reduce problems

in the wildland-urban interface.

Implementation

A training-of-trainers workshop was conducted for 50

state foresters, extension specialists, and other natural

resource professionals to introduce these materials and

support them through the process of designing workshops for their colleagues. Feedback from the training

workshop suggests that the professional development

program accomplished the desired goals. Workshop

participants commented on the usefulness of the exercises, fact sheets, and case studies that accompany each

module. Most recognize that it will take time to become

comfortable with the material; but they also acknowledged that some sections are easy to use immediately.

The material is perceived as relevant and not similar to

existing materials. Participants rated the materials 4.6 on

a 5-point scale where 5 is “very relevant to the work of

my agency or organization.” They also rated the materials 2.6 on a 5-point scale where 5 is “very similar to

resources I already have.” Workshop participants are

likely to use the materials with others, share them with

other trainers, and help train their staff. Respondents

rated these latter three questions 4.2, 4.3, and 4.2,

respectively, on a 5-point scale where 5 is “very likely.”

Respondent comments also reinforced our belief that

state agencies have different needs and capacities for

using this material. Some states may wish to participate

in a followup regional workshop put on by local trainers.

Some states may wish to team up with other state agencies or extension faculty to organize a training program.

Other states may have additional needs.
181

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

We are working with the Southern Wildland-Urban

Interface Council to help design opportunities to support

natural resource agencies in the South as they wrestle

with the changing opportunities, changing landscape,

and their changing roles.

Literature Cited

Macie, E.; Hermansen, L.A., eds. 2002. Human

influences on forest ecosystems: the Southern

wildland-urban interface assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep.

SRS-GTR-055. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research

Station. 159 p.
182

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726
183

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Measuring Best Management Practices Knowledge and

Implementation Among Catskill/Delaware Watershed Nonindustrial

Private Forest Landowners

John F. Munsell1and René H. Germain2

knowledge in the Catskill/Delaware watershed surpassed

that of Oneida County. However, field surveys on property owned by mail survey respondents that harvested

timber during the past 3 years indicated no difference

in BMP implementation between the two. This result

suggests that higher levels of knowledge in the watershed sample have not generally influenced BMP implementation.

Keywords: Nonindustrial private forest land, diffusion of innovation, New York City water supply system,

best management practices.

Introduction

Throughout most of the 20th century, New York City

(NYC) residents, commuters, and tourists have benefited

from some of the purest drinking water in the Nation. As

we enter the 21st century, land use changes in NYC’s

heavily forested surface water supply system threaten the

quality of its water supply (NYC DEP 2002). Worldwide,

large cities and rural communities are striving to balance

economic development and long-term prosperity with

environmental quality and protection. The NYC water

supply system is a high-profile example of a working forested landscape where nonindustrial private forest (NIPF)

landowners hold the key to water quality.

This paper presents the results of a study designed

to assess the current state of forestry “best management

practices” (BMP) knowledge and implementation among

NIPF owners in the Catskill/Delaware watershed of

NYC’s water supply system. The BMPs are simple, “onthe-ground” practices that effectively reduce soil erosion

and the subsequent sedimentation of water bodies resulting from timber harvest operations (Martin and Hornbeck

Abstract

The Catskill/Delaware watershed of the New York City

Water Supply System is a regional example where

nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowners play a

major part in maintaining the quality of the system’s

water. About 75 percent of the heavily forested Catskill/

Delaware watershed is privately owned. Yet the extent to

which these owners help protect the United State’s

largest surface water storage and supply system is not

extensively regulated. Rather, system managers seek to

foster water quality stewardship among NIPF owners

through education, technical assistance, and costsharing.

Forestry education and outreach programs in this watershed promote forestry “best management practices”

(BMPs) as a way for NIPF owners to manage forests while

simultaneously protecting water quality. This study measured the diffusion of BMPs among Catskill/Delaware

watershed NIPF owners by using a mail and field survey.

For comparative purposes, a parallel evaluation was completed outside the watershed in Oneida County, New

York, which has limited education and outreach opportunities for NIPF owners when compared to the Catskill/

Delaware watershed. Diffusion of innovation was used as

the theoretical construct for the study. We were particularly interested in the knowledge and implementation

stages of diffusion. Mail survey results indicated BMP

1

Ph.D. candidate, Department of Forest and Natural Resources

Management, State University of New York College of Environmental

Science and Forestry, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, New York 13210;

Tel: 315-470-4891; e-mail: jfmunsel@syr.edu.

2

Associate professor, Department of Forest and Natural Resources

Management, State University of New York College of Environmental

Science and Forestry, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, New York 13210;

Tel: 315-470-6698; e-mail: rhgermai@esf.edu.
184

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

1994). The BMPs consist of techniques and guidelines

for ensuring proper skid trail and forest road slope and

placement, along with the suitable construction and

positioning of log landings and stream crossings to

reduce the potential for significant erosion and sedimentation. Of particular importance to water quality are the

correct installation and maintenance of water diversion

devices such as water bars, broad-based dips, and diversion ditches to control the flow of water over exposed

soil on skid trails, log landings, forest roads, and stream

crossings. The use of BMPs by NIPF owners in NYC’s

water supply system is critical because it helps strike a

balance between commercial timber harvests and water

quality protection. What makes this case unique is that

in lieu of stringent regulations, NYC water supply managers rely on voluntary education, technical assistance,

and cost-sharing as the means for increasing BMP

knowledge and implementation among NIPF owners.

This paper provides an overview of NYC’s water

supply system, followed by a discussion of the collaborative management agreement currently in place in the

Catskill/Delaware watershed and the role of the Watershed Forestry Program in organizing NIPF owner education, technical assistance, and cost-sharing there. The

research question, theory base, and design are presented

next. This is followed by a presentation of the study

results and a discussion of their relevance and contribution to NIPF owner education, technical assistance, and

cost-sharing within the Catskill/Delaware watershed.

The Context: New York City’s Water Supply

System

New York City’s water supply system encompasses

about 5180 km2 of land within three major watersheds,

making it the largest unfiltered surface storage and supply system in the United States. The system provides, on

an average day, 5.1 billion liters of clean drinking water

to 9 million residents in the greater NYC area, as well as

1 million tourists and commuters. The Catskill and

Delaware watersheds, located in the Catskill Mountain

region of New York state, supply approximately 90

percent of NYC’s water and make up nearly 4250 km2 of

the system. About 45,000 full-time residents live within

the boundaries of these two watersheds. The older and

suburbanized 971 km2

 Croton watershed 65 km north of

Manhattan, supplies about 10 percent of NYC’s water

and houses approximately 160,000 full-time residents.

About 75 percent of the entire water supply system is

forested, with almost 75 percent of the area owned by

NIPF owners (NYC DEP 2002).

The important role of NIPF owners in the protection

of NYC’s water supply stems first and foremost from the

simple fact that they own the majority of land in the

system. Other large metropolitan surface water supply

systems—such as Boston, San Francisco, and Seattle—

differ in this regard because the cities own and administer the majority of the land in their systems. Protecting

NYC’s water quality, on the other hand, is as much a

responsibility of watershed NIPF owners as it is NYC’s

water supply managers. Without their cooperation, the

quality of the water supplied by this high-visibility

system may suffer.

Surface Water Treatment Rule and Memorandum of Agreement

In 1989, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) promulgated the Surface Water Treatment Rule

pursuant to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986. The ruling stated that all surface drinking

water sources must undergo filtration. This was particularly problematic in the Catskill/Delaware watershed

(watershed). Building a facility capable of filtering the

4.6 billion liters of drinking water extracted each day

from this system proved to be a monumental hurdle for

NYC’s water supply system managers. Cost estimates for

such a facility ran as high as $8 billion to build and $300

million a year to operate.
185

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

The rule, however, also afforded the option of

requesting a Filtration Avoidance Determination (FAD),

which would allow surface water supply system managers to circumvent filtration in the watershed. According

to the rule, a FAD would be awarded if and only if managers were able to demonstrate that they were capable of

directing human activities and controlling contaminants

within their respective system. Thus, NYC could either

construct a costly filtration plant or enact policies to

meet FAD requirements; in the end they sought to direct

behavior.

Water supply managers released a draft watershed

protection plan to the public in September 1990 that

included, among other components, revised watershed

regulations not updated since 1953. The draft regulations sparked considerable opposition from local watershed communities, especially farmers and the local forest

industry, who asserted that regulations would jeopardize

their continued economic viability (Watershed Forestry

Task Force 1996). Emerging from this conflict was a

protracted negotiation process between NYC and the

watershed communities. The signing of the NYC Watershed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in 1997 ended

years of talks between upstate watershed advocates and

NYC. The MOA closely outlined the city’s long-range

watershed protection plans and ultimately enabled the

NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to

receive a FAD from the EPA (NYC DEP 2002).

The MOA was hailed as a great civic achievement,

the product of a historic urban-rural collaboration. At its

core, the agreement called for a 10-year, $1 to $2 billion

investment by NYC in watershed stewardship, which was

to be achieved not through stringent regulations, but

education, technical assistance, and cost-sharing (Gray

2003, Platt et al. 2000). Absent of rigid regulations on

land use, the management strategy outlined in the MOA

entails a noncoercive method that, among other things,

seeks to expand the voluntary use of BMPs by NIPF

owners.

The Watershed Forestry Program (WFP) was fashioned during the development of the MOA to oversee

efforts to encourage water quality protection in watershed forests. The program is based on the premise that a

well-managed working forested landscape provides the

most beneficial land cover for water quality protection.

The challenge for the WFP is to ensure local protection

of water quality when most watershed residents, at best,

distrust, at worse, hold animosity toward NYC. To overcome this impediment, the WFP partnered with local

forestry and environmental organizations to promote

voluntary forest management planning at a grassroots

level. The WFP encourages BMP implementation by

coordinating stepped-up extension efforts focusing on

NIPF owner outreach and education, while also offering

subsidized written management plans, technical assistance, and some cost-sharing for owners.

In addition to their focus on NIPF owners, the WFP

also coordinates and provides forest and water quality

training and continuing education for forestry practitioners working in the watershed. The program recognizes

that a sensible approach for improving the implementation of forest and water quality management practices on

watershed NIPF targets not only owners but also foresters

and loggers. Often referred to as the “private forest management triangle,” these three components can each

independently affect the implementation of BMPs on

NIPF. Although the WFP acknowledges that watershed

foresters, loggers, and NIPF owners all have a hand in

forest and water quality management, they also hold the

position that NIPF owners are of particular strategic importance because they are ultimately responsible for

management activities on their property. As such, they

have developed a robust program specifically designed

to foster voluntary BMP implementation on the part of

watershed NIPF owners.
186

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Research Question

The research reported in this paper focuses on NIPF

owners and their contribution to forest management and

water quality protection in the watershed. This focus is of

great importance for NYC’s water supply system managers and the WFP, especially given the critical role of

NIPF owners in maintaining NYC’s ability to deliver topnotch water to its residents, commuters, and tourists. In

particular, this study sought to answer questions about

how much watershed NIPF owners know about BMPs and

whether or not they are implementing them.

Theory Base

Diffusion of innovation is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels

over time among the members of a social system (Rogers

1995). Rogers (1995) developed a theoretical, crosscultural model of diffusion of innovation with broad

applicability, outlining how a new idea, object, concept,

or practice spreads throughout a group of people. In

theory, individuals experience a series of actions and

make decisions over time leading to the adoption or

rejection of an innovation. Of particular importance to

this paper are the knowledge an individual possesses

about an innovation and their subsequent implementation of the innovation. Knowledge is conceptualized

as an individual’s awareness of an innovation and

familiarity with how it works and is used. Implementation represents the actual use of an innovation. Although

diffusion theory does not suggest that knowledge

predicts implementation, we sought to test for a significant relationship between them as a means for better

understanding voluntary BMP implementation by

watershed NIPF owners.

Methods

A two-phased “ground-truth” method was used to

measure BMP knowledge and implementation. A mail

survey was used to collect data on BMP knowledge, and

a field survey was conducted to measure BMP implementation. The study collected data in both the watershed

and Oneida County New York. Oneida County is located approximately 110 km north of the watershed and

served, in essence, as a control for mail and field survey

data testing. The population frame for this research consisted of owners holding 10 or more acres of forested

property. The 10-acre threshold was based on the minimum acreage for the National Tree Farm Program and the

WFP management plan program (Tree Farm 2003, WFP

2001).

Diffusion literature was used to validate the content of the survey. Face validity was achieved through

a panel of experts. These individuals helped choose

themes and create a strategic purpose for the survey. The

mail survey’s reliability was tested in a pilot study of 31

NIPF owners not included in the study.

Double stratified random sampling was used to ensure spatial and acreage heterogeneity. Spatial diversity

was achieved by stratifying the study’s population frame

based on watershed basin. Next, acreage diversity was

achieved by stratifying each basin cohort by parcel size.

The following acreage categories were used for stratification: 10 to 19, 20 to 29, 30 to 39, 40 to 49, 50 to 74, 75

to 99, 100 to 149, and 150 acres or more. These acreage

categories were used to stratify the random sampling of

NIPF owners in Oneida County.

The mail survey was a Likert-type instrument that

used three scales to measure BMP knowledge. Each

Likert scale consisted of six possible responses on a

bipolar continuum, where a response of “1” equals

“strongly unaware” and “6” represents “strongly aware.”

This scale, which does not include a neutral response,

was selected primarily to decrease “lazy” responses. All

surveys were administered following Frankfort-Nachmias

and Nachmias (2000), which recommends using four

successive mailing steps (two surveys, each followed by

a reminder card).
187

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

The first knowledge scale consisted of four statements intended to measure each respondent’s awareness

of BMPs. The six statements in the second scale were

intended to gauge each respondent’s knowledge about

the basic functions of BMPs. The statements specifically

focused on the relationship between forests and water

quality, and the potential impact of timber harvests on

water quality. The third scale comprised six statements

intended to measure a respondent’s knowledge about

how BMPs are implemented. The means of these scales

were summed and averaged to calculate an overall BMP

knowledge score. Respondents were also asked to recall

their use of technical assistance and education prior to

receiving the survey and indicate if they have a written

forest management plan for their NIPF.

The mail survey was used to obtain access to NIPF

that had recently been harvested. Respondents from both

the watershed and Oneida County who had harvested

timber on their property in the past 3 years were asked if

they would allow a graduate student to conduct a field

evaluation on their property. The respondents who

agreed to the evaluation became the sample for the field

survey.

Schuler and Briggs’s (2000) BMP compliance

evaluation, the New York state BMP field guide, expert

input, and multiple field tests were used to develop the

field survey. A point system was used to assign a BMP

implementation score. This system included four mutually exclusive categories: 0 = “BMP not used”; 1 =

“BMP used with major deviations”; 2 = “BMP used with

minor deviations”; and 3 = “BMP used and correctly

applied.” A census of each harvested site was conducted.

Each evaluation consisted of BMP implementation measurements on all log landings, forest roads, skid trails,

and stream crossings. Summing the scores for each measurement and averaging the results determined the overall BMP implementation score.

A single researcher conducted field surveys. To

prepare for the survey, the site’s topography and water

bodies were identified by using topographical maps. A

clinometer was used to assess slope grade; distance and

area measurements were taken with a measuring wheel

and used to weight scores, where a longer skid trail or

larger landing was weighted more heavily than a shorter

or smaller counterpart when computing segment scores.

The BMP implementation scores were tallied on a blank

survey during the visit and were weighted and calculated

afterwards.

Independent t-tests were used to test mail and field

survey data. Knowledge and implementation data were

first factored by a respondent’s location (i.e., watershed

or Oneida County) and tested for statistical significance.

The implementation scores for skid trails, log landings,

and water diversion devices was then factored by a

respondent’s location and tested for statistical significance. Watershed data were then separated and BMP

knowledge was tested for statistical significance when

factored by the respondent’s participation in technical

assistance and education and BMP implementation when

factored by use of a written management plan.

Results

Six hundred and forty-five surveys out of the 700 mailed

were successfully delivered to NIPF owners in the watershed. Two hundred and seventy-five out of 645 were

returned for an adjusted response rate of 43 percent. One

hundred and eight mail surveys out of 115 were successfully delivered to NIPF owners in Oneida County. Fiftyfour out of 108 were returned for an adjusted response

rate of 50 percent. The Cronbach Alpha score for each

knowledge scale was above .80, indicating strong interitem correlations for the mean scores used to tabulate

overall knowledge (Carmines and Zeller 1979). Seventyone percent of the NIPF owner respondents that had harvested timber on their property in the previous 3 years

agreed to allow a field visit. Field surveys were ultimately conducted on 31 harvested NIPF parcels in the

watershed and 13 harvested NIPF parcels in Oneida

County.
188

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Table 1 presents overall BMP knowledge mean

scores for watershed and Oneida County NIPF owner

respondents. The summed mean for watershed respondents is significantly higher than the mean response for

Oneida County respondents. Table 1 also presents BMP

implementation mean scores for surveyed NIPF harvests

in the watershed and Oneida County. There is no statistical difference between the implementation means.

Table 2 contains the mean scores for the log landing,

skid trail, and water diversion device BMP implementation evaluations for surveyed harvests in the watershed

and Oneida County. No statistical difference exists

between the means. The log landing and skid trail means

represent each harvest’s summed and weighted score for

that particular component of the implementation evaluation, whereas the water diversion device means were

computed by using specific scores related to the implementation of these devices across all field survey components (i.e., skid trails, forest roads, log landings, and

stream crossings). Forest roads and stream crossing scores

were not included as stand-alone components in this

analysis because of low sample sizes owing to the

irregularity with which they were encountered.

Table 3 illustrates the differences in BMP knowledge

between watershed NIPF owner respondents who had

used forestry technical assistance and education and

those who had not, and differences in BMP implementation between watershed NIPF owners with and without

written management plans. The summed BMP knowledge mean for watershed respondents that used technical

assistance and education is significantly higher than the

mean response for those watershed respondents that did

not. The tabled results also indicate that written management plans, regardless of their sponsorship (i.e., New

York State, WFP, Tree Farm, etc.), significantly increase

BMP implementation mean scores on watershed NIPF.

Discussion

Although the difference in BMP knowledge between

watershed and Oneida County NIPF owners is an interesting result, the similarity in BMP implementation between the two is a more notable outcome. Why does

the implementation of BMPs on Watershed NIPF fail to

surpass implementation rates on Oneida County NIPF?

This question is particularly striking when considering

the low implementation rates for water diversion devices

across all implementation evaluations. There are at least

three possible explanations for this disparity.

First, BMPs are a preventative innovation. Rogers

(1995) describes preventative innovations as those that

are adopted at one point in time to avoid an unwanted

event in the future. These innovations typically have a

slow rate of adoption because individuals often have

difficulty observing or understanding the advantages of

using such an innovation. Just because a watershed NIPF

owner knows about BMPs does not mean they are able

to observe and understand the preventative nature and

advantage of BMPs. Their inability to adequately absorb

these concepts may therefore lead to lower implementation rates.

Another possible explanation for the disparity

between BMP knowledge and implementation among

watershed NIPF owners is related to economics. Arguments for rejecting BMPs are frequently associated with

the cost of their use (Schuler 1999). For example, using

BMPs was shown to reduce the net revenue for a timber

harvest by 59 percent in the Midwest (Ellefson and

Miles 1985). Anecdotally speaking, informal conversations with loggers and foresters often indicate that the

reduction in net revenue from a timber harvest influences

an NIPF owner’s decision to use BMPs. Despite their

knowledge of BMPs, some watershed NIPF owners may

decide against using them because of the associated or
189

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Table 1—Independent t-tests of (BMP) best management practice

knowledge and implementation by location of NIPF owner respondents

Sample Standard

Location size Mean deviation

BMP knowledge Watershed 234 4.14a 1.05

(scale: 1 to 6) Oneida 49 3.19b .70

BMP implementation Watershed 31 1.75a .46

(scale: 0 to 3) Oneida 13 1.60a .32

Note: Means with the same letter are not significantly different (α = .05).

Table 2—Independent t-tests of (BMP) best management practice

implementation on landings and skid trails and water diversion device

implementation, by location of NIPF owner respondents

Sample Standard

Location size Mean deviation

BMP implementation Watershed 31 1.89a .50

landings

(scale: 0 to 3) Oneida 13 1.76a .36

BMP implementation Watershed 31 1.56a .47

skid trails

(scale: 0 to 3) Oneida 13 1.44a .39

Water diversion device Watershed 31 .28a .51

implementation

(scale: 0 to 3) Oneida 13 .04a .10

Note: Means with the same letter are not significantly different (α = .05).

Table 3—Independent t-tests of watershed (NIPF) nonindustrial private forest owner respondent

(BMP) best management practice knowledge by (1) forestry technical assistance and education use

and (2) use of a written management plan

Sample Standard

Use size Mean deviation

Use of technical Yes 38 5.03a .79

BMP knowledge assistance and education

(scale: 1 to 6) by watershed NIPF owners No 191 3.96b 1.01

BMP implementation Use of written Yes 9 2.28a .38

(scale: 0 to 3) management plan by

watershed NIPF owners No 21 1.52b .29

Note: Means with the same letter are not significantly different (α = .05).
190

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

perceived costs—particularly in light of the expenses

tied to the implementation and long-term maintenance

of water-diversion devices.

Lastly, the nature of the private forest management

triangle may contribute to lower implementation rates.

As described earlier, this triangle represents the relationship between NIPF owners, loggers, and foresters in the

management of NIPF. Though NIPF owners are considered the strategic decisionmakers in the triangle, foresters and loggers are also influential players. It is entirely

possible that some of the less desirable BMP implementation scores on watershed NIPF were related to poor

performance or lack of implementation on the part of

foresters and loggers.

Conversely, some good news about BMP knowledge

and implementation in the watershed does exist. The

BMP knowledge was higher among watershed NIPF

owners that reported using forestry technical assistance

or education. Furthermore, BMP implementation was

higher on NIPF harvests where the owner stated that a

written management plan exists. These two results are

significant given that watershed NIPF owners who use

forestry technical assistance and education are more

likely to have a written forest management plan (Munsell

and Germain 2004). These results illustrate that the combination of education, technical assistance, and management planning by the WFP and others are critical in the

push to maintain a working forested landscape that

simultaneously provides high-quality drinking water.

Implications

With nearly 3900 km2 of forest land in NYC’s water

supply system, the importance of forest management

that is compatible with water quality is paramount yet

also challenging because approximately 75 percent

of the system’s forest land is NIPF. The results of this

research suggest that there is a need to place stronger

emphasis on promoting management plans and consistency in implementation. Efforts are already being made

on this front. To check for consistency in follow-on

activities, the WFP is currently conducting field surveys

on NIPF managed with plans that they have subsidized.

Continuing ground-truth research, such as the study

reported in this paper and the work being conducted by

the WFP, will provide constructive insight into the

relationship between BMP knowledge and implementation among watershed NIPF owners.

However, this information must also be put to use.

It is imperative that new knowledge is used to develop

innovative, yet practical education, technical assistance,

and cost-sharing approaches so that a more consistent

process of innovation diffusion occurs in the watershed.

In light of the results presented in this article, watershed

outreach and education programs must first continue

striving to reach the greatest number of owners possible.

They must also work in a variety of ways to help these

individual owners clearly see the merits of BMP implementation—both from a personal and social perspective.

Greater efforts to subsidize the actual implementation of

BMPs may pay dividends as well. This is especially true

when considering the possibility that implementation

costs are often a limiting factor. Lastly, the process of

BMP implementation is one that involves multiple

parties. Fostering a private forest management triangle

that effectively works together toward the consistent

implementation of BMPs should remain a primary goal

of watershed managers and education and outreach

programs.

Water supply managers and forestry education and

outreach specialists have made great strides in NYC’s

water supply system. As a result, the system stands as a

positive example of urban-rural collaboration centered

on forest and water quality management. Yet, there is

still more work to do. Research is needed to better understand the role of foresters and loggers in the management triangle and to learn more about how biophysical,

social, and economical context affects forestry practices

on watershed NIPF owners. An aggressive and adaptive

education and outreach approach must also remain

strong so that such information can be effectively
191

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

synthesized and communicated to watershed audiences

holding the key to water quality in NYC’s supply system.

This approach and what is learned in following it will

not only benefit NYC’s water supply system, but other

working forested landscapes as well.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the USDA Cooperative State

Research Education and Extension Service, Edna Bailey

Sussman Foundation, and the C. Eugene Farnsworth

Memorial Fellowship for their support. The authors

would also like to thank the Watershed Agricultural

Council in Walton, New York, for their assistance.

English Equivalents

1 kilometer (km) = 0.6215 mile

1 square kilometer (km2

) = 0.386 square mile

1 liter (L) = 0.265 gallon

Literature Cited

Carmines, E.G.; Zeller R.A. 1979. Reliability and

validity assessment. Quantitative applications in the

social sciences series. No. 17. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage Publications. 70 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Miles, P.D. 1985. Protecting water quality

in the Midwest: impact on timber harvesting costs.

Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 2(2): 57–61.

Fankfort-Nachmias, C.; Nachmias, D. 2000. Research

methods in the social sciences, 6th ed. New York:

Worth Publishers. 550 p.

Gray, G.J. 2003. Linking water quality and community

well being in a forested watershed. In: Kusel, J.;

Adler, E., eds. Forest communities, community

forests: a collection of case studies of community

forestry. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield

Publishers. 301 p.

Martin, C.W.; Hornbeck, J.W. 1994. Logging need not

cause sedimentation of streams. Northern Journal of

Applied Forestry. 11(1): 17–23.

Munsell, J.; Germain, R.H. 2004. Forestry extension

participation and written forest management plan

use in New York City’s water supply system. Journal

of Extension. 42(2).

New York City Department of Environmental

Protection 2002. New York City’s Water Supply

System. http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dep/html/

watersup. (January 6, 2004).

Platt, R.H.; Barton, P.K.; Pfefer, M.J. 2000. A full,

clean glass? Managing New York City’s watersheds.

Environment. 42(5): 10–20.

Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New

York: The Free Press. 519 p.

Schuler, J.L. 1999. Assessing application and effectiveness of suggested forestry BMPs in the Adirondack

and Catskill regions of New York. Syracuse, NY:

State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 78 p. M.S. thesis.

Schuler, J.L.; Briggs, R.D. 2000. Assessing application

and effectiveness of forestry best management

practices in New York. Northern Journal of Applied

Forestry. 17(4): 125–134.

Tree Farm. 2003. American Tree Farm System Web site.

http://www.treefarmsystem.org/. March 19, 2007.

Watershed Forestry Task Force. 1996. Policy recommendations for the watersheds of New York City’s

water supply. Kingston, NY. 40 p.

Watershed Forestry Program. 2001. Watershed

Agricultural Council Web site. http://

www.nycwatershed.org/. March 19, 2007.
192

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726
193

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Using Web-Based Technology to Deliver Scientific Knowledge: The

Southern Forest Encyclopedia Network

John M. Pye,1 H. Michael Rauscher, Deborah K. Kennard, Patricia A. Flebbe, J. Bryan Jordin,

William G. Hubbard, Cynthia Fowler, and James Ward

Background

It has long been recognized that knowledge has great

value. Until fairly recently, however, most people did not

think in terms of “managing knowledge.” They felt that

knowledge was a personal asset, the sum of our experiences, education, and our informal community of friends

and colleagues that help us perform better in our complex world (Plunkett 2001).

As computer technology improved and became

cheaper in the early 1990s, researchers in academia,

government, and private industry began to explore the

gains that could be made by organizing knowledge,

codifying it, and sharing it more widely. The early innovators began to demonstrate that actively improving

the management of knowledge could improve the ability

of scientists to deliver their research results into the

hands of users (Rauscher 1987), help government cope

with downsized budgets and increased work (Plunkett

2001), and assist private industry with gaining and

maintaining competitive advantage (Heinrichs et al.

2003).

We can define knowledge management as the

systematic strategy of creating, conserving, and sharing

knowledge to increase the performance of individuals,

companies, or nations (Heinrichs et al. 2003, Plunkett

2001). The Forest Encyclopedia Network (FEN) was

designed as a system for managing knowledge for the

forestry community, based on Web technology, which

is both maintained and distributed over the Internet.

Forest science poses a number of challenges to

knowledge management. Certainly one challenge common to science in general is the way in which scientific

Abstract

Forest science, like any science, is a continuous process

of discovering new knowledge, reevaluating existing

knowledge, and revising our theories and management

practices in light of these changes. The forest science

community has not yet found the solution to the problem

of getting continuously changing science efficiently and

effectively into the hands of those who need it in their

daily work, the forest practitioners. The Forest Encyclopedia Network or FEN (www.forestencyclopedia.net)

represents a new approach to the synthesis and delivery

of forest science knowledge. The USDA Forest Service

Southern Research Station, the Southern Regional Extension Forestry system, the USDA Forest Service State

and Private Cooperative Forestry Program and the Southern forestry university community are all engaged in

building and testing this new science delivery concept.

The network currently has four encyclopedias in various

stages of completion: The Encyclopedia of Southern

Appalachian Forest Ecosystems, The Encyclopedia of

Southern Fire Science, The Encyclopedia of South-Wide

Forest Science, and The Encyclopedia of Southern Bioenergy. This paper will describe the history, current

status, and future plans for the FEN project.

Keywords: Knowledge management, World Wide

Web, hypertext encyclopedia.

1 Ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3041 E Cornwallis

Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; Tel: 919-549-4013;

e-mail: jpye@fs.fed.us.
194

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

knowledge largely resides in highly technical, narrowly

focused research publications. More particular to forest

science is the array of disciplines on which it is based.

Southern forestry brings extra challenges including its

rich and evolving scientific literature and its diverse mix

of landowners. Some 5 million private landowners control the forests of the South, with government managing

just 11 percent (Wear and Greis 2002). Getting information to this large, diverse audience is a challenge that

inspired us to develop FEN.

Web technologies offer a number of features useful

for knowledge management and distribution. These

include a rich set of development tools, universally

available access, and an easy-to-use interface. Of special

attraction is how links between pages can help organize

large amounts of information into a hypertext and how

Web standards permit the display of various media in an

attractive and interactive interface. The FEN exploits

these features, building on earlier efforts in forestry.

These include Rauscher (1987), who introduced the

concept of modern knowledge management to the

natural resource field. Rauscher (1991) followed with

the first electronic hypertext encyclopedia called “The

Encyclopedia of AI Applications to Forest Science.”

Other hypertext products for nonnetworked personal

computers followed in rapid succession (Rauscher et al.

1997, Reynolds et al. 1995, Thomson et al. 1993).

With the growth of the Internet, knowledge management systems using Web-based hypertext gained an

enormous competitive edge over stand-alone systems.

In a pioneering effort, Thomson et al. (1998) combined

knowledge-based systems processing and hypertext

markup language (HTML) to provide forest tree disease

diagnosis over the Internet. Anyone with a Web browser

could now access the diagnostic software. Examples

of Internet-based knowledge management systems for

natural resource management can be found at FEN where

a growing number of scientific encyclopedias can be

found (Kennard et al. 2005).

Approach

The FEN facilitates the transfer of usable knowledge

from scientific experts to managers, policymakers, and

natural resource professionals. Users of the site are

offered what adult educators call a self-directed learning

tool where individuals can obtain information on an asneeded basis.

A typical encyclopedia project begins with the

development of the “core material.” It is directed by one

or more subject matter experts who act as the managing

editors. These editors are responsible for creating an

information architecture, identifying the content and

engaging authors to write needed synthesis pages. They

are also responsible for guiding the peer-review process

for each section. Assistant editors work with the managing editors to ensure that the content material gets

properly placed into the hypertext encyclopedia and that

the figures, tables, and citations are all properly linked.

Finally, technical specialists are responsible for maintaining the common computing infrastructure and

making improvements in page design, workflow, and

system function.

All of the various encyclopedia projects share the

same computing infrastructure to reduce implementation

costs. Once the “core material” for an encyclopedia is in

place, it moves to a continuous update mode where

various authors submit new or revised material to keep

the content current and expanding.

Content

The FEN offers concise, authoritative syntheses of

knowledge tied to the scientific literature on which it is

based and organized to meet user needs. Content is often

drawn from existing review documents but if necessary is

custom written for the encyclopedia. Content can be in

several forms, including narrative text pages, citations,

data tables, and figures. Each page is embedded in a

subject matter outline that provides context and enhances understanding.
195

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Content is arranged as a set of narrowly focused

Web pages, each tied to a rich set of related information.

Arranging content into a large set of tightly focused Web

pages makes it easier for users to find specific content

relevant to their needs. A search for the term of interest

brings the user to a particular page, and the navigation

pane places the page in context and identifies pages

with related content. Arranging content in this way

also makes it easier to delegate authoring and revision

processes, speeds downloading of content by the user,

and makes it easier to reuse the same content in different

contexts.

Quality of content is ensured through the same

means used in more traditional scientific publications.

All content includes author attribution and full citations.

All content must also pass anonymous peer review before

being published on the Internet. Updates to the content

must undergo the same peer and editorial review as

original content.

A hierarchical information architecture organizes

this wealth of information. Every page clearly displays to

the user where the current page resides in that hierarchy

and offers navigation options to other portions of the

hierarchy (see fig. 1). These supplement the hyperlinks

provided in the body of the content. The hierarchy is

easily extended and modified to adapt to evolving content and user needs. Indeed, although not yet implemented, the system can permit users to select alternative

architectures, rearranging the navigation structure to

better suit particular needs. Alternative architectures

could be offered to facilitate reuse of the same content

for specific workshops or courses, for special-purpose

collections, or to highlight specific topics.

The four encyclopedias at FEN together offer about

1,700 pages of content, over a thousand images, and over

7,000 citations. By sharing a common set of development tools, the individual encyclopedias at FEN can

share content and operate more efficiently. However,

each encyclopedia retains its own management and

information architecture.

Contributors

Creating and maintaining encyclopedias takes a great

deal of effort and thus requires contributions from a wide

array of institutions and individuals.

The FEN was created as a collaboration of the USDA

Forest Service Southern Research Station, the Southern

Forestry University community, the USDA Forest Service

State and Private Cooperative Forest Program and the

Southern Regional Forestry Extension System. The first

two organizations have conducted forest research and the

latter have worked closely with landowners and managers to use resulting information to improve forest practices in the South. This multiagency collaboration draws

on the strengths of all parties to improve how scientific

information is summarized and delivered to the broader

forestry community.

Funding from these sponsoring organizations has

been augmented by grants from USDA’s National Research Initiative and Bioenergy program, the National

Fire Plan, and the Joint Fire Science Program.

Editors for the various encyclopedias in FEN design

the information architecture for each encyclopedia,

identify source materials, and recruit authors and peer

reviewers. Editors also edit content for consistent style

and formatting and add hyperlinks when necessary.

Authors write original content either expressly for an

encyclopedia or for more traditional outlets. Authors are

generally experts in their field. Various federal and state

agencies and nonprofit organizations have contributed

authors. The majority have come from universities and

the Southern Research Station.

The FEN currently has an editorial board of nine

editors and is drawing on content from over a hundred

corresponding authors.

Process

Specialized software tools and efficient project organization are needed to coordinate the efforts of numerous

editors and authors across diverse organizations and locations. The FEN uses a customized content management
196

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

system (CMS) based on the Content Management Framework of Zope, itself an open source Web development

environment (Learner 2002). Jordin and others (2003)

provided technical details. This paper will focus on

current workflow and features.

Customized CMS software simplifies Web authoring

and citation management, standardizes page design and

display, enforces role-based security, and manages the

flow of work from content creation through peer review,

editing, and publishing.

The FEN leverages Web technology and the Internet

not only for distributing its content but also for managing it. Editors, authors, and peer reviewers can all perform their tasks from anywhere on the Internet by using

commonly available browsers. This capability makes it

easier to recruit talent regardless of their location.

Role-based permissions allow editors to perform

tasks different from those of authors or peer reviewers.

They also control access to information. For example, to

ensure the anonymity of the peer-review process, editors

can see the identity of peer reviewers but authors cannot.

Each individual can be assigned authority over portions

of content. Identities are confirmed by ID and password

combinations.

The content management system manages content

as an object-oriented database, assembling Web pages

dynamically when requested. This allows the navigation options to dynamically reflect existing content and

makes it much easier to change the information architecture. The system automatically generates a table of contents and lists of figures and tables, as well as a search

index. Improvements to the user interface are applied

easily and consistently across the site.

Figure 1—Sample content page in the Encyclopedia of Southern Appalachian Forest Ecosystems showing top-level

(near top) and lower level (left side) navigation options.
197

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Predefined workflows ensure that content moves

from authoring through peer review and editing, with

editorial approval prior to publishing on the public site.

Task lists are generated for each individual with email

notification of newly added tasks. Published pages that

are undergoing revision remain visible to the public

until the revised content is approved for publication.

Hyperlinks are automatically adjusted when content

is moved in the information hierarchy to prevent dead

links. Advanced portal tools permit construction of

alternative displays and functions for different user

groups or preferences.

Implementation

The FEN is the result of both insightful design and

experience. In April 2000 it began with a single encyclopedia—the Encyclopedia of Southern Appalachian

Forest Ecosystems, abbreviated ESAFE (Kennard and

others 2005). The first managing editor of ESAFE was

Deborah Kennard. When Kennard moved to managing

the Encyclopedia of Southern Fire Science, Michael

Rauscher took over as managing editor of ESAFE and

Patricia Flebbe, David Wear, Kenneth Cordell, and

Dennis Ward became section editors. The ESAFE was

published in 2004 following full peer review. It demonstrated the feasibility of using a Web-based organization

and delivery platform for scientific knowledge.

The ESAFE provided a number of lessons. Its

logistic underpinnings were woefully inadequate for

managing the content of multiple authors and did not

provide the flexibility to evolve with content over time.

It did, however, prove its utility to customers, as expressed through a customer survey conducted in 2002.

Visitors to the site appreciated the content, organization,

and navigation but wished to see improved access to the

underlying scientific publications, more content and

more illustrations. Their suggestions were incorporated

into the present product.

The success of ESAFE encouraged the establishment

of other encyclopedias. The Encyclopedia of Southern

Fire Science, edited by Deborah Kennard and Cynthia

Fowler, was second to the network and is now largely

complete. A third encyclopedia, the broader Encyclopedia of Southern Forest Science, is well underway. It will

draw initial content from two publications offering a

combined 1,000 printed pages of peer-reviewed content

(Rauscher and Johnsen 2004, Wear and Greis 2002).

Editors are Mike Rauscher and John Pye, with completion expected by 2006. The most recent encyclopedia,

still in its early stages, is the Encyclopedia of Bioenergy/

Bioproducts (Smith, in press)2

. Its managing editor is

C.T. Smith and is scheduled for completion by late 2006.

We expect to shift to maintenance activities on the first

two encyclopedias around mid-2005. Several additional

projects are under evaluation.

At present, each encyclopedia has its own content

and information architecture. Revisions currently unfolding will allow the same content to be used in multiple encyclopedias, facilitating the creation of broader

collections of information as well as the reuse of specific

content wherever it is appropriate.

Challenges

The FEN is a new approach to the delivery of scientific

knowledge to users. Project members have successfully

launched four encyclopedias on various topics and

guided the software infrastructure through three major

revisions. Many challenges have been overcome to

prove that the encyclopedia approach is indeed a viable

scientific knowledge management and delivery mechanism. Some challenges remain.

One continuing challenge is motivating scientific

experts to synthesize scientific information and provide

it in appropriate form to the editors. The FEN must find

ways to demonstrate the worth of the contributions of

authors and editors in a way that is recognizable and

2

 Smith, C.T. Knowledge products to inform rural communities

about sustainable forestry for bioenergy and biobased products.This

was a power point presentation at the conference.
198

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

valued by their peers. The Director of the Southern

Research Station has indicated he supports allowing its

scientists to claim encyclopedia contributions as a peerreviewed product in their performance evaluations. A

marketing effort is currently underway to persuade the

scientific community that contributions to the encyclopedia are an excellent way to get research results into the

hands of users while earning a peer-review credit for their

own career enhancement. Page activity reports can also

provide authors and their supervisors feedback on the

utility of their work.

Writing style is another challenge. Most scientists

are more familiar with writing in the lengthy, linear style

common to traditional journals than the punchy, conclusion-first style needed in the hypertext world of the Internet. Forest Encyclopedia Network’s editors can assist

the authors with this transformation. Closely related to

writing style is inclusion of graphics, another area where

the assistance of editors and graphics support staff could

improve migration of material to the Web.

Just as writing styles need to change, so too must

content. Procedures must be developed to identify

obsolete content, enlist authors to update it, and provide

proper attribution to what in some cases may be minor

revisions. One option FEN is exploring is an archiving

system that would allow visitors to “peel back” current

contents to reveal previous versions, showing what previous authors wrote on the subject. This could show

visitors how scientific understanding and its expression

in the encyclopedia have changed over time. Most Web

sites focus on delivering current information. Designing

an interface that shows change in content over time

without confusing the audience would be a substantial

achievement.

Another challenge is refining how we promote the

encyclopedias to potential users. Although promotion

can include traditional outlets like trade journals and

conferences such as this one, additional avenues need to

be explored including link promotion, improving the

ranking of key content by commercial search engines,

and sharing of FEN content with broader collections.

Particularly critical is the use of the encyclopedia

content by extension professionals. Extension specialists

should be able to easily take encyclopedia content and

use it in various forms to support end-user training and

education programs. The FEN collaborators are currently

designing a marketing program to improve the visibility

of FEN among extension specialists and natural resource

managers and to encourage their advice on how to

improve its content and delivery.

Literature Cited

Heinrichs, J.H.; Hudspeth, L.J.; Lim, J.S. 2003.

Knowledge management. In: Hossein B., ed.

Encyclopedia of information systems, Academic

Press. 3: 13–31.

Jordin, J., Jr.; Hubbard, W.; Kennard, D.; Milnor, W.;

Rauscher, M.; Veal, B. 2003. Using the Zope Web

application framework to build and manage a large

encyclopedia of scientific knowledge. In: Innes, T.,

ed. Putting knowledge to work. FORREX Series No.

8. Kamloops, B.C.: FORREX—Forest Research

Extension Partnership: 135–145.

Kennard, D.K.; Rauscher, H.M.; Flebbe, P.A.; Schmoldt,

D.L.; Hubbard, W.G.; Jordin, J.B.; Milnor, W.

2005. Using hyperdocuments to manage scientific

knowledge: the prototype Encyclopedia of Southern

Appalachian Forest Ecosystems. Forest Ecology and

Management. 207: 201–213.

Plunkett, P. 2001. Managing knowledge @ work: an

overview of knowledge management. Knowledge

Management Working Group of the Federal Chief

Information Officers Council, U.S. General Services

Administration, Office of Information Technology.

pearl.butler@gsa.gov. 36 p.
199

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Rauscher, H.M. 1987. Increasing scientific productivity

through better knowledge management. AI

Applications. 1(2): 21–31.

Rauscher, H.M. 1991. The encyclopedia of AI

applications to forest science. AI Applications. 5(2):

insert (592 KB, 235 Chunks, 449 Links [electronic]).

Rauscher, H.M.; Loftis, D.L.; McGee, C.E.; Worth, C.V.

1997. Oak regeneration: a knowledge synthesis.

FORS Compiler. 15(1): insert (electronic).

Rauscher, H.M.; Johnsen, K., eds. 2004. Southern forest

science: past, present, and future. Gen. Tech. Rep.

SRS-75. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research

Station. 394 p.

Reynolds, K.M.; Rauscher, H.M.; Worth, C.V. 1995. A

hypermedia reference system to the forest ecosystem

management assessment team report and some

related publications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-357.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 13 p. +

electronic files

Thomson, A.J.; Sutherland, J.R.; Carpenter, C. 1993.

Computer-assisted diagnosis using expert systemguided hypermedia. AI Applications. 7(1): 17–27.

Thomson, A.J.; Allen, E.; Morrison, D. 1998. Forest tree

diagnosis over the World Wide Web. Computers and

Electronics in Agriculture. 21(1): 19–32.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. 2002. Southern forest resource

assessment–technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 p.
200

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726
201

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Got Science? Getting Science to People Who Care About Forests

Valerie A. Rapp1 and Sherri Richardson-Dodge2

discussion about the issue. Keys to success with readerfriendly publications are discussed in the paper. Policymakers, agency executives, and others have told us they

use these accessible publications as a vital information

source.

Keywords: Science communications, reader-friendly

publications, newspapers, fire risk.

The American national forests cover 77.3 million ha

(191 million acres), and these national forests are valued

for their water, forests, wildlife, beauty, recreation, and

other resources. From the beginning of the Forest Service

in 1905, agency leaders set out to learn more about how

forests worked so these highly valued resources could be

managed well.

The Pacific Northwest (PNW) Research Station

is part of the research branch of the Forest Service. Our

scientists conduct research in the spruce (Picea spp.) and

aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) forests of Alaska, the

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws.) forests and rangelands of the dry, interior Northwest, and

the Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco)

and hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) forests of

the coastal Northwest. In addition to their well-known

work on old-growth forests, these scientists are studying

young forests, sustainable forestry, fish and wildlife, rural

communities, and more.

We at PNW Research Station want to be recognized as the go-to people in the region for the best

information on forest science. Our forest sector includes

private forest lands as well as national forests, state forests, and tribal forests, and includes policymakers and

managers of those lands. Our congressional representatives and senators care a great deal about these forests,

Abstract

The Pacific Northwest (PNW) Research Station is part of

the research branch of the USDA Forest Service. We want

policymakers, nongovernment organizations, teachers,

reporters, forest landowners, and others to rely on us as a

source of credible, reliable science information. These

people are interested and often very influential in forest

management, yet they have differing levels of expertise.

One part of PNW Research Station’s communications

strategy was to build people’s awareness about new forest science and technologies. Therefore, we added two

publication series to our portfolio, products that would

be readable and attractive but also technically sound.

The first reader-friendly publication series, Science

Findings, is a 6-page, newsletter-style publication

delivered monthly. Readers can skim it in 5 minutes or

read it closely in 20 minutes. The second series, Science

Update, is a 12-page, color, quarterly publication. It is a

synthesis of research related to pressing issues. Over

8,000 people receive free subscriptions to these two

publications, and thousands more download them from

our Web site. In the severe fire season of 2002, these two

publication series played a vital role in getting scientific

information about fire risk in Western forests into public

1

Science writer (retired), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Station Director’s Office,

P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208; Tel: 541-822-3348; e-mail:

valgeneskrine@earthlink.net.

2

Public affairs specialist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Station Director’s Office,

P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208; Tel: 503-808-2137; e-mail:

srichardsondodge@fs.fed.us.
202

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

as do the citizens in their districts (fig. 1). We have a very

articulate and involved public with a wide range of viewpoints, and of course we have the media. We want all of

these people to rely on us as a key source of credible,

reliable science information, yet these interested people

have widely differing levels of expertise.

To meet these goals, the PNW Research Station

developed a comprehensive communications strategy

(Miner 2005). The communications strategy is based

on an understanding of how people learn about and then

decide to use new concepts, knowledge, and technologies, a process known as the diffusion of innovations

(Rogers 2003). Diffusion begins with awareness, continues with persuasion, and then moves into adoption,

where people take action to adopt and use new ideas or

technologies. Publications, mass media, and electronic

media can be very effective in the first stage of building

awareness. Persuasion and adoption often require additional methods such as workshops, training, field trips,

and consultation.

One part of the communications strategy was to

do more to build people’s awareness about new forest

science and technologies. The PNW Research Station

has long had a solid base of peer-reviewed scientific

publications, but these reached a limited audience. To

reach more people, more often, with more of the Station

scientists’ new findings, we added two new publication

series to our portfolio, products that would be readable

and attractive but also technically sound. This paper

focuses on these publication series, the Science Findings

and Science Update, as case studies, so that others can

create similar publications as technology transfer tools

for their programs. Note, however, that these shorter,

readable publications are effective in part because they

are parts of a well-thought-out strategy and an extensive

portfolio.

Science Findings

The first publication series, Science Findings, was

started in 1998. The Science Findings is a 6-page,

Figure 1—A group of people discuss what should be done after the B&B Fire burned through part of the

Deschutes National Forest in central Oregon—whether timber should be salvaged and what the restoration

plan should be.

Jamie Barbour
203

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

newsletter-style publication delivered monthly (fig. 2).

Readers can skim it in 5 minutes or read it closely in 20

minutes. Each issue focuses on one research topic, and

the scientific work featured must be peer-reviewed before

it’s accepted for Science Findings. Information is set

within the context of relevant management issues, but

is not highly time-sensitive. Topics are selected through

a yearly call for submissions from Station scientists; a

panel recommends finalists to the Station Director, who

makes the final selections.

A managing editor and freelance writer work with

the selected scientists to develop each issue. The writing

is engaging, with titles like, “Sex and the Single Squirrel: A Genetic View of Forest Management in the Pacific

Northwest,” and “Out, Out, Dam Spot! The Geomorphic

Response of Rivers to Dam Removal.” Within the publication, key findings and management implications are

highlighted in text boxes so they are easy to find. The

PNW Research Station communications staff handles the

editing and layout, and printing is done through the

Government Printing Office.

Science Update

The second publication series, Science Update, was

started in 2002. The Science Update is a 12-page, color,

quarterly publication (fig. 3). A reader could skim it in

about 5 minutes, but it would take half an hour or more

to read the entire publication. Each one is a synthesis of

our current scientific information related to an emerging

or pressing natural resources issue in the Pacific Northwest. The Station Director and Communications and

Applications Director choose the topics based on their

perceptions of important or controversial issues facing

forest policymakers.

The Science Update is managed and written by a

staff writer. Each issue is a synthesis of work from several

scientists, sometimes using in-press manuscripts or newly

completed analysis that is still in-house. Titles suggest

the synthetic or overview character of the publication,

such as “Invasive Plants in 21st Century Landscapes” and

“Ecosystems and People: Managing Forests for Mutual

Gains.” The format is highly visual, with color photos,

computer graphics, tables, and sidebars, both to clarify

scientific points and to make the publication more

attractive. Key findings are highlighted, management

implications are discussed, and the sidebars present case

studies and background information. Because the

publication is a synthesis and sometimes describes new

work, the manuscript is peer reviewed.

Getting Scientific Information Into

Discussions

Over 8,000 people receive free subscriptions to these

two publications, and thousands more download them

from our Web site. We distribute hundreds more copies

at conferences and meetings. The more telling results,

perhaps, are that key opinion leaders in federal and state

agencies, leaders of nongovernment organizations, and

university professors often request extra copies of particular issues, which they distribute to others at meetings,

workshops, and classes. (We do not endorse particular

workshops, and ask that people use the publication the

way it is intended: as scientific information, not as

advocacy.)

What we really want to accomplish, however, is not

just to distribute thousands of copies of publications.

The publications are successful only if they bring solid,

relevant scientific information into natural resource

discussions. Below, we discuss an example of Science

Findings and Science Update publications helping

deliver our science message about fire risk into public

discussions.

One of the big stories in the Western United States in

recent years has been fire risk in Western forests. In the

winter of 2002, the Station Director asked for a Science

Update on fire risk in east-side forests, which are in the

dryer inland region east of the Cascade Range crest in

Oregon and Washington.

The fire risk debate in a nutshell was that some

people said wildfires were worse than they ever were
204

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Figure 2—The monthly Science Findings keeps foresters, elected officials, and others in

touch with new work by Station scientists on a wide range of research topics.

Frank Vanni

Figure 3—The quarterly Science Update presents credible information on controversial

issues in natural resources. It stimulates thinking and provides references for indepth

exploration.

Frank Vanni
205

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

before and we needed to reduce fuels in Western forests.

Other people said the fuel reduction argument was just

an excuse for logging. Elected officials were telling the

Station Director that they wanted science information

they could be sure was correct before they moved ahead

with new laws and policies, and they were looking to

PNW Research Station as a credible source of information.

The topic of fire risk was selected in the winter of

2002. As it happened, summer 2002 was marked by

severe, persistent drought across much of the United

States and turned into the West’s worst fire season in

years. Nearly 2.8 million ha burned, compared to a 10-

year average of 1.6 million ha. Over 2,300 buildings

were burned by wildfires, with another 110,000 structures threatened but successfully protected by firefighters. The 2002 fire season was especially memorable

for its large timber fires. The states of Colorado, Arizona,

and Oregon each recorded their largest fire of a century.

Summer 2002 was a teachable moment when people

who didn’t read science journals or pay attention to forestry cared about fire risk in forests. In the Pacific Northwest, the teachable moment came in July when lightning

strikes started hundreds of fires, including the Biscuit

Fire (fig. 4). The Biscuit Fire turned out to be the largest

fire of all in a season of large fires, burning over 200 000

ha in southwest Oregon and northern California.

Our Science Update on fire risk came out just as the

Biscuit Fire was exploding in southwest Oregon. Reporters from the Oregonian, the largest newspaper in Oregon,

had our Science Update and followed up with calls to the

scientists and to our communications group. On July 24,

2002, the front page of the most widely read newspaper

in Oregon featured our science information showing how

lethal fire severity today has greatly expanded from

historical conditions.

The article used a graphic from the Science Update.

This graphic, initially published in a peer-reviewed

journal article, features one particular subwatershed in

northeastern Oregon (Hessburg et al. 2000). It shows how

the area likely to have lethal fire severity today has

greatly expanded from the historical condition. The average flame length today would likely be high over much

of the watershed, compared to average flame lengths

under patchier historical conditions. The Oregonian

article continued inside with quotes from PNW Research

Station scientists and discussion of their work.

The information had gone from science journals to

the front page of the daily newspaper. But it got there

only by going through an intermediate publication that

translated the esoteric language of journals into more

accessible language and a reader-friendly format.

In August the Oregonian followed up with articles

on the price tag of fuel reduction work and on the

Station’s climate change research. Other reporters saw

these stories and developed their own stories. All the

media coverage eventually looked at many aspects of

the issues: the raging fire season, changed ecological

processes in forests, fire effects on wildlife and streams,

thinning treatments and effects, small-tree economics,

postfire salvage, postfire invasive plants, and the effects

of climate change on forests. These stories drew on recent

issues of Science Findings as sources.

One limitation of a short, reader-friendly publication

is that each issue can only tell a small part of the story.

Fortunately many issues of Science Findings were out

there, and issues of both publications continued to cover

relevant topics after the summer was over, when people

were trying to make sense of it all and figure out what to

do. For example, a later issue of Science Update tackled

questions about the economics of fuel treatments to

reduce fire hazard and the challenges of balancing costs

and results at the landscape level.

Fire risk in Western forests is one of those major

natural resource issues where public understanding and

discussion are crucial for progress on the ground. The

Science Findings and Science Update don’t lower the

fire risk, but they can make a vital contribution to

shaping the solutions.
206

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Keys to Success With Reader-Friendly

Publications

The organizational context is important for a readerfriendly series of publications to be successful. First,

your organization must recognize the importance of

communications in scientific research. At PNW Research

Station, a link between our executive leadership and our

communications program was critical for the adequate

investment of time and money.

Also, the reader-friendly publications must be part of

an overall communications strategy that covers all the

stages of the diffusion of innovations process. At PNW

Research Station, a communications portfolio with

multiple products helps to build awareness about new

findings and ideas, the first stage of diffusion. Along

with Science Findings and Science Update, the portfolio

includes peer-reviewed technical publications, Web

pages, CD-ROMs, and online databases.

Figure 4—The Biscuit Fire was front-page news in summer 2002 in

Oregon. The fire’s devastating effects spurred people’s interest in

scientific information about fire risk in western forests.

Tom Iraci
207

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Publications alone, however, are seldom enough to

get new science adopted in everyday forest management.

Personal contacts have always been and will continue

to be central to the persuasion and adoption phases of

the diffusion process. To meet these needs, the PNW

Research Station’s communications strategy includes an

active program of workshops, field trips, and special

events, with the involvement of many partners.

At the level of the publication series, the overall key

to success is that reader-friendly publications must be

consistent, reliable, and credible. The quality of the

science, the writing, and the graphic design all need to

be excellent (Blum and Knudson 1997). To ensure your

science is accurate, work closely with scientists and get

peer review of your manuscript. It’s also important to get

these products out on a regular schedule with consistent

quality.

Other keys to success are related to audience,

language, and narrative. Your decision on what audience

to target matters, because audiences such as government

policymakers, watershed councils, and field managers

have different needs and backgrounds. At PNW Research

Station, we cover only research relevant to management

or to pressing natural resource issues in the Science

Findings and Science Update. Because of this decision,

some fascinating Station research does not get covered in

these two series.

To be easily read, publications need to be written

in clear language. Scientific terminology and concepts

should be defined; even college-educated audiences do

not know the meanings of many terms well understood

inside the scientific community. Sidebars are a good

place to explain basics. More knowledgeable readers

can skip the definitions, and other readers will appreciate

the explanation. The Science Update on fire risk had a

sidebar defining terms such as “fire intensity” and “fire

regime.” You may need to address popular misconceptions about a subject. For example, in a later Science

Update on how climate change will affect forests, a short

sidebar explained what computer modeling can and

cannot do. It should go without saying, of course, that

words like “facilitation” and “implementation” should

be eliminated.

Only essential data and numbers should be included

in a publication for general audiences. The Science

Update on fire risk did not attempt to present the extensive data from various studies on thinning treatments to

reduce fire hazard, but it did present a table summarizing

the principles of FireSafe forests, alongside text with

additional explanation about the different types of

thinning treatments and how they could be used. A

“further reading” section at the end provided sources

for detailed information. Although the reader-friendly

publication cannot present all the complexity and

nuances of a subject, it should not gloss over scientific

uncertainty or overstate the evidence.

The average reader’s attention span is short. Summaries, bullets, sidebars, and eyecatching photos with

succinct captions are good techniques that help people

find key points even if they only skim the publication.

These techniques also make it easy for people to show

the key points to others. Both Science Findings and

Science Update begin with an “In summary” section on

the first page, so that a person can find out immediately

what that issue offers.

The final key to success is narrative. Reader-friendly

publications need to tell a compelling story. Scientists

tend to be uncomfortable with the idea that they’re

telling a story, but people make sense of facts by connecting them with narrative. A narrative, or a storyline, is

the only way to connect data into something meaningful

and significant (Cronon 1992). You will be most successful in reader-friendly publications if you get comfortable

with the idea that you’re telling a story. Some possibilities for narrative include telling the steps a scientist went

through in finding research answers or explaining how

concepts about an issue have evolved as new information

has been learned.
208

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Telling the story of a scientific issue requires moving

away from journal language and toward the language of

ideas, interpretation, and translation. The reader-friendly

publication explains, step by step, the new understanding that emerges from the findings of individual studies.

The publication should discuss the significance of the

research, but avoid advocacy.

Conclusion

Policymakers, university professors, agency executives,

and others have told us they use the Science Findings

and Science Update publications as a key information

source. For example, research on climate change and

forests, management of second-growth forests, fire risk,

and invasive plants has been widely distributed and

discussed through these two publications. For many

managers, the Science Findings and Science Update are

the only PNW Research Station publications they read

regularly.

Scientists whose research has been featured have

been invited to present their findings to federal agency

heads, state commissions, city clubs, and other groups.

Media stories about science from the PNW Research

Station have increased significantly since Science

Findings and Science Update were started, from an average of fewer than 10 per year before 1998 to 41 in 2004,

89 in 2005, and 47 in just the first 4 months of 2006

(Sands 2006). For both publications, we’ve received

compliments from diverse groups, including environmental organizations and timber industry groups. We feel

this shows that well-explained science is appreciated by

people with very different viewpoints.

Reader-friendly publications can help in getting

science to people who care about forests. In a crowded

world where people’s needs and healthy forests are both

important, this task is an important part of the communications job.

English Equivalent

1 hectare (ha) = 2.47 acres

References

Blum, D.; Knudson, M. 1997. A field guide for science

writers. New York: Oxford University Press. 287 p.

Cronon, W. 1992. A place for stories: nature, history,

and narrative. Journal of American History. March:

1347–1376.

Hessburg, P.F.; Smith, B.G.; Salter, R.B. [et al.]. 2000.

Recent changes (1930s–1990s) in spatial patterns of

interior Northwest forests, USA. Forest Ecology and

Management. 136: 53–83.

Miner, C.M. 2005. Draft program charter. Unpublished

document. On file with: USDA Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station, P.O. Box 3890,

Portland, OR 97208-3890.

Rapp, V.A.; Richardson-Dodge, S. 2002. Unpublished

records of news clippings and media contacts from

summer, 2002. On file with: USDA, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Station

Director’s Office, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR

97208-3890.

Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New

York: Free Press. 551 p.

Sands, Y. 2006. PNW Research Station media clips

archive. Unpublished database. On file with: USDA

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,

Station Director’s Office, P.O. Box 3890, Portland,

OR 97208-3890.

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 1998 to present.

Science Findings. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

publications/scifi.shtml. (1 June 2006).

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 2002 to present.

Science Update. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

publications/sci-update.shtml. (1 June 2006).
209

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Reaching Out to Family Forest Owners: An Examination of

Information Behaviors by Attitudinal Type

K. Julie Richter1 and Bernard J. Lewis2

applicable to family forest owners in other geographic

areas, it is believed that an increased awareness of the

different styles of information behavior and their connection with an owner’s attitudes can lead to improved

outreach and assistance for family forest owners.

Keywords: Family forest owners, information

behavior, attitudinal typology, market segmentation,

nonindustrial private forest land (NIPF).

Introduction

With 42 percent of U.S. forest land controlled by over 10

million family forest owners (Butler and Leatherberry

2004), reaching out to this ownership group is critically

important to ensuring the sustainable management of

the Nation’s forest resource. It is even more crucial in

Missouri, where 74 percent of the state’s 6 million ha of

forests are controlled by family forest owners. Previous

research has examined the connection between knowledge and management behavior (e.g., Egan and Jones

1993), program participation (e.g., Nagubadi et al. 1996),

and adoption/diffusion (e.g., West et al. 1988) in the

forest owner population. However, studies examining the

information behavior of the owners are virtually nonexistent in the literature. Information behavior refers to a

person’s ongoing relationship with information; it

includes a person’s self-perceived information needs,

information seeking, passive acquisition of information,

information avoidance, and information use and transfer

(Case 2002, Wilson 1999). Whereas active information

seeking often occurs in the event of a looming decision,

information behavior is ongoing and affects not only

discrete decisions but also a landowner’s everyday

relationship with the land. The objective of this study

Abstract

Information behavior refers to a person’s ongoing

relationship with information; it includes a person’s selfperceived information needs, information seeking, passive acquisition of information, information avoidance,

and information use and transfer. The objective of this

study was to describe the information behavior of family

forest owners with regard to how they learn about forest

ecosystems and natural resource management. A mail

survey was sent to a random sample of family forest

owners in the eastern Ozarks of southeastern Missouri.

By using a cluster analysis, a typology of family forest

owners was created based upon four sets of attitudes:

reasons for owning land, landownership values, attitudes

relating to collaborative stewardship, and community

values. This resulted in two distinct attitudinal types of

family forest owner: the legacy owner, for whom the land

is a relatively important part of one’s personal and family

identity, and the detached owner, for whom it is significantly less important. The two types were compared in

terms of demographic and landownership characteristics,

management behaviors, and information behaviors.

Results show that family forest owners who identify

strongly with their land also tend to use significantly

more sources of information to learn about their land. In

addition, these owners are significantly more influenced

by other people when making decisions about their

woodland. Although these results are not directly

1

Policy analyst, Canadian Forest Service, 580 Booth St., 8th Floor,

Ottawa, ON K1A 0E4, Canada; Tel: 613-947-9042; e-mail:

jrichter@nrcan.gc.ca.

2

 Assistant professor, Department of Forestry, University of

Missouri–Columbia, 203 Natural Resources Building, Columbia,

MO 65211.
210

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

was to describe the information behavior of family forest

owners with regard to how they learn about forest ecosystems and natural resource management.

Study Area

The study area lies in the eastern Ozark Highlands of

southeastern Missouri, in the lower Midwestern United

States. The area encompasses approximately 708 000 ha

and is defined by two contiguous watersheds, namely the

Upper Black and the Upper St. Francis. The reason these

watersheds were chosen for the study is twofold. First, the

area has a low degree of fragmentation, both in terms of

property ownership and contiguous forest cover. Over 90

percent of the study area is forested, and it is part of the

largest block of forest land in the Ozarks and one of the

largest in the Midwest (Nigh and Schroeder 2002).

Second, the level of urbanization in the study area is

relatively minimal.

Methods

Survey

A mail survey was sent to a random sample of 739 family

forest owners who owned at least 0.4 ha of forest land in

the study area. To encourage a high response rate, implementation of the mail survey followed the principles

of the Tailored Design Method (Dillman 2000). The

mailings consisted of (1) a notice card, introducing the

landowner to the study; (2) the questionnaire accompanied by a cover letter and a packet of eastern redbud

(Cercis canadensis L.) seeds as an incentive; (3) a

thank you/reminder postcard; (4) a second copy of the

questionnaire, accompanied by a cover letter, to all nonrespondents; and (5) a third copy of the questionnaire,

accompanied by a cover letter, sent by priority U.S. mail

to all nonrespondents. The 12-page questionnaire consisted primarily of close-ended questions. After adjusting for undeliverable questionnaires and ineligible

responses, the response rate was 54.7 percent.

Typology Creation

A typology of the family forest owners was created

based on four sets of attitudes: reasons for owning land,

landownership values, attitudes relating to collaborative

stewardship, and community values. Each of these was

addressed by a set of questionnaire items. Ordination

was first used to uncover the latent attitudinal variables

of interest. To determine the dimensionality of each

attitude, Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was

used. In this sense, ordination is a useful precursor to

cluster analysis as it reduces the dimensionality of a

large, complex data set and creates a smaller set of

new, uncorrelated variables (the principal components)

(McGarigal et al. 2000). Factors with eigenvalues greater

than one were selected by using a maximum of 25 iterations. 3

 For all scales yielding more than one component,

Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization was used to

rotate the matrix orthogonally with the maximum

number of iterations for convergence set to 25. Reliability analyses were performed on all scales by using

Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of internal consistency.

Weighted factor scales were constructed to score

each individual on the new variables created above

(principal components). In this method, the selected

items for each factor are weighted by the rotated factor

loadings for that item (de Vaus 2002). To adjust for

missing values and avoid the loss of too many cases, the

mean of each set of weighted items was used, i.e.:

Factor score = Mean of [(factor loading x item 1),

(factor loading x item 2), ...]

This produced a score for each respondent on each

of the 12 new variables. These variables were then used

to create the typology by using a TwoStep cluster

analysis procedure with log-likelihood distancing. This

3

An eigenvalue is a statistic that represents the amount of variance

that is accounted for by a given component. Because each observed

variable contributes one unit of variance to the total variance,

components with eigenvalues greater than one account for more

variance than that contributed by one variable.
211

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

resulted in two distinct attitudinal types of family forest

owners. All statistical analyses were performed by using

SPSS for Windows (version 12.0; SPSS, Chicago, IL).

Results

Family Forest Owners: An Attitudinal Typology

Two distinct attitudinal types of family forest owner

were found, with 65.3 percent of respondents clustering

together, and the remaining 34.7 percent forming the

second cluster. The variable most significant in differentiating the clusters was the measure of the owners’ legacy

values (fig. 1). Members of the larger group tended to

score significantly higher than average on the legacy

index, and were therefore named the legacy owners.

These owners also scored higher than average on enjoyment values, and on all of the ownership objectives:

legacy and heritage, conservation, lifestyle, and utility.

These owners are distinguishable by their relatively high

emotional and family attachment to the land, and they

are more likely to indicate that they own their land to

pass on to their heirs or because it is part of their family

heritage. In direct contrast to the legacy owners, the

smaller group is most readily distinguished by smaller

than average scores on the legacy values index. This

group also scores significantly below average on all of

the ownership objectives, as well as on enjoyment values

and communication with other landowners. This other

owner is defined by a relative lack of emotional and

family attachment to the land, and family legacy is a

relatively less important reason why they own the land.

This group was therefore named the detached owners.

A comparison of the two attitudinal types based on

demographic and land ownership characteristics revealed

that there were many similarities between the groups.

Family forest owners in the two groups did not differ

significantly with respect to land holdings, gender,

degree of absenteeism, or the proportions with urban/

suburban/rural backgrounds (table 1). There was a

significant difference in the proportion of farmers in the

two groups, with legacy owners much more likely to

describe themselves as farmers than detached owners.

Despite the demographic similarities, the two

attitudinal types differed with respect to management

behavior. Legacy owners were significantly more likely

to have harvested trees, conducted timber stand improvement (TSI), and planted trees on their property than detached owners. They were also much more likely to

describe themselves as managers. However, there was no

significant difference between the groups with respect to

the proportion of owners in each group who had a written

management plan for their land.

Information Behavior by Attitudinal Type

Results show that family forest owners who identify

strongly with their land also tend to draw on a greater

variety of information sources to learn about their forest

(fig. 2). Legacy owners use significantly more sources of

information to learn about their land than do detached

owners (two-sample Z test, p = 0.000). The top three

sources of information for both groups were books or

magazines; the Missouri Department of Conservation;

and friends, relatives, or neighbors. Eight sources of

information were used by significantly more legacy

owners than detached owners (Fisher’s exact test, twotailed, p < 0.5): books or magazines; friends, relatives,

or neighbors; Soil and Water Conservation Districts;

logging contractors; TV, radio, or newspapers; Internet

Web sites; farm suppliers or tree nurseries; and county

extension educators. In addition, legacy owners are

significantly more influenced by other people when

making decisions about their woodland (two-sample Z

test, p = 0.000; fig. 3). The most influential people for

both types of owners were their spouses and their

children; however, even these immediate relatives

exerted only little to moderate influence on the primary

decisionmaker.
212

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Figure 1—Students-t values for variables by cluster: (A) the legacy owner, (B) the detached owner.
213

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Table 1—Demographic, land ownership, and management characteristics by attitudinal type

Legacy Detached

P-value Total owners owners

Number 285 186 (65.3%) 99 (34.7%)

Mean hectares

Land holdings (mean ha) 0.734a 75.08 72.83 79.39

Percent

Absentee owners 0.796b 38.2 37.5 39.6

Past harvesting experience 0.003b 48.9 55.7 36.4

Past TSI experience 0.000b 22.3 28.8 10.2

Past tree-planting experience 0.003b 40.0 46.4 28.3

Self-perceived managers

Yes 0.000b 65.5 75.8 45.9

No 0.170b 21.8 14.0 36.7

Don’t know 0.157b 12.7 10.2 17.3

Have a written management plan 0.054c 3.2 4.3 1.0

Gender (percent male) 73.4 76.2 68.0

Background

Urban 9.9 8.1 13.3

Suburban 34.6 31.4 40.8

Rural 55.5 60.5 45.9

Farmers 0.003b 19.9 25.0 10.2

a P-value is for two-sample Z test. b P-value is for Fisher’s Exact Test (two-sided). c

 P-value is for Pearson Chi-Square (two-sided).
214

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Figure 2—Sources of information used by family forest owner, by cluster: (A) the legacy owner, (B) the

detached owner. Sources that are used significantly more by one type (Fisher’s exact test, two-tailed, p <

0.5) are indicated with a *. MDC = Missouri Department of Conservation, MDNR = Missouri Department of Natural Resources, SWCD = Soil and Water Conservation District, NRCS = Natural Resources

Conservation Service.
215

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Figure 3—Degree of influence other people have on a family forest owner’s management decisions, by

cluster: (A) the legacy owner, (B) the detached owner.
216

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Summary

Family forest owners in the Missouri Ozarks clustered

into two distinct groups based on their ownership objectives, landownership values, attitudes toward collaborative management and community values. Legacy values

and objectives were the most important factors in delineating the two groups. A large majority (65 percent)

of the owners fell into the group with higher than average legacy values and were called legacy owners. The

remaining 35 percent of owners had lower than average

legacy values and were called detached owners. Legacy

owners had significantly more harvesting, TSI, and treeplanting experience than did detached owners, and the

former were more likely to see themselves as managers.

However, there was no significant difference in the

number of owners who had a written management plan.

The two groups did not differ significantly with respect

to land holdings, absentee ownership, gender, or urbanism. However, legacy owners were more likely to be

farmers than were detached owners. Legacy owners did

use significantly more sources of information to learn

about their land than did detached owners. Legacy

owners were also significantly more influenced by other

people when making decisions about their woodland.

Spouses and children were the most influential people

for both groups.

Conclusions

Legacy values were the key dimension in separating

attitudinal types of family forest owners. Family forest

owners’ attitudes should not be inferred based upon the

size of their land holdings or their residency status

(absentee vs. resident). Family forest owners who value

their land for legacy and heritage reasons are more likely

to be active managers. However, they are no more likely

to have a written management plan. The overall use of

information by forest owners is relatively low. However,

legacy owners do make use of more information sources

than do detached owners. The most likely way of

reaching this group is books and magazines, the Missouri Department of Conservation, or the owner’s friends,

relatives, and neighbors. Although these results are not

directly applicable to family forest owners in other geographic areas, it is believed that an increased awareness

of the different styles of information behavior and their

connection with an owner’s attitudes can lead to improved outreach and assistance for family forest owners.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge contributions from

the following individuals: Amy Ross-Davis, Sean Huss,

Sandy Rikoon, Mark Yates, and Jennifer Fleming. This

project was supported by Initiative for Future Agriculture

and Food Systems Grant no. 00-52103-9643 from the

USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and

Extension Service.

English Equivalents

1 hectare (ha) = 2.47 acres

Literature Cited

Butler, B.J.; Leatherberry, E.C. 2004. America’s family

forest owners. Journal of Forestry. 102: 4–9.

Case, D.O. 2002. Looking for information: a survey

of research on information seeking, needs, and

behavior. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 350 p.

de Vaus, D. 2002. Analyzing social science data:

50 key problems in data analysis. London: Sage

Publications. 401 p.

Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: the

tailored design method. 2nd ed. New York: John

Wiley & Sons. 464 p.

Egan, A.; Jones, S. 1993. Do landowner practices reflect

beliefs? Journal of Forestry. 91: 39–45.

McGarigal, K.; Cushman, S.; Stafford, S. 2000.

Multivariate statistics for wildlife and ecology

research. New York: Springer. 283 p.
217

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Nagubadi, V.; McNamara, K.T.; Hoover, W.L.; Mills,

W.L., Jr. 1996. Program participation behavior of

nonindustrial forest landowners: a probit analysis.

Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 28:

323–336.

Nigh, T.A.; Schroeder, W.A. 2002. Atlas of Missouri

ecoregions. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Department

of Conservation. 212 p.

West, P.C.; Fly, J.M.; Blahna, D.J.; Carpenter, E.M.

1988. The communication and diffusion of NIPF

management strategies. Northern Journal of Applied

Forestry. 5: 265–270.

Wilson, T.D. 1999. Models in information behaviour

research. Journal of Documentation. 55: 249–270.
218

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726
219

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Evaluating Technology Transfer in the Logging Industry:

A Case Study With Portable Timber Bridges

Robert L. Smith1 and Ren-Jye Shiau2

Introduction

A fundamental problem in transferring technology is one

of differences; differences between cultures, organizations, and individuals. It has been suggested that better

methods (strategies) to overcome this problem are to reduce the degree of differences and to shorten the perceptual gaps in communication among transfer groups

(Dearing 1993). Although technology developers, transfer intermediaries, and technology end-users may have

different views and concerns about innovation, strategies

to bridge the differences between these groups are essential to the success of any technology transfer effort.

The transfer process has not always been smooth. Many

technology transfer efforts between public and private

sectors have been disappointing (Piper and Naghshpour

1996, Spann et al. 1995). In the past, technology transfer

was viewed as a unilateral flow process (i.e., good technologies sell themselves). For example, the adoptiondiffusion models developed in the 1950s (Rogers 1983).

However, these models did not provide much guidance

for improving or speeding up technology transfer efforts

and processes (Baldwin and Haymond 1994). More

recently, the subject has been heavily emphasized

for marketing considerations. Yet, technology transfer

processes and efforts are far more complex than most

research recognizes (Baldwin and Haymond 1994). To

succeed in technology transfer, it is necessary to overcome communication difficulties among groups (Irwin

and Moore 1991).

Technology transfer from outside sources has been

demonstrated recently in the timber bridge market. The

U.S. Congress funded the Wood in Transportation (WIT)

program (formally known as the National Timber Bridge

Abstract

A study was undertaken to investigate the market for

new portable timber bridges, the barriers to technology

transfer, and effective communication channels. The

first part of the study used the “mall intercept” method

to interview over 150 loggers. The second part of the

research used a mail survey to over 600 technology

transfer intermediaries (preidentified by loggers) in the

logging industry. These intermediaries included state

agencies (foresters), industry foresters, marketing professionals in private companies, officers in trade associations, and extension personnel. The third part of the

study included over 20 portable timber bridge technology developers. Important sources used technology

developers for disseminating technology information

were identified. Also this research evaluated methods

from a developers’ point of view, for effectiveness in

disseminating new technology information, identified

factors influencing their decisions to provide new technology to the logging industry, and identified preferred

intermediaries (channels) for transferring this new technology to the industry. Therefore, this research identified

preferred channels of communication for transferring

portable timber bridge technology in the logging industry and then identified technology transfer participant differences that hinder the transfer process.

Keywords: Technology transfer, communication

channels, timber bridges, and marketing.

1

 Professor, Virginia Tech, 1650 Ramble Road, Blacksburg, VA

24061 Tel: 540-231-9759, Fax: 540-231-8868, e-mail:

rsmith4@vt.edu.

2

Associate professor, Department of Marketing, National Chung

Hsing University, Taichung City, Taiwan.
220

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Initiative), which is administrated by the USDA Forest

Service (beginning in fiscal year 1989) to help rebuild

local infrastructures and increase the use of underutilized

or low-value timber species for bridge construction.

Since its beginning, over $20 million has been authorized for research, construction, and technology transfer

of information regarding the use of timber for modern

bridges (USDA FS 1995).

Objectives

• Identify transfer participants’ methods of receiving

and disseminating information.

• Determine the best channels of technology transfer

for the diffusion of portable timber bridge

technology to loggers.

Methodology

Sample Frame

To study how loggers receive new technology information, the sample frame consisted of loggers located

within the eastern half of the United States. To determine

if differences existed between demographic areas, four

distinct demographic regions were identified. They included the East, South, Mid-Atlantic, and Midwest portions of the United States. These four regions accounted

for a major portion of timber bridges that were funded

by the WIT program.3 Data from sample frame 1 (loggers)

were collected by using the “mall intercept” interview

method. Four logging industry trade shows were attended during May 1998 to September 1998, three in the

Mid-Atlantic States and one in the Midwest. During the

same period, questionnaires were also sent to several

forestry-related trade associations in the Southern States

and selected Cooperative Extension personnel in the

3

 Cesa, E. 1997. Program manager, Wood in Transportation Program,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Morgantown.

Personal Interview. November.

New England states. These organizations agreed to

request participation from loggers at logger training/

education classes. These organizations returned completed questionnaires to the researchers.

 A total of 158 useable questionnaires were returned

and used for data analysis. Furthermore, respondents

were segmented by different demographic regions and

data collection locations. Eighty-nine respondents were

from the Mid-Atlantic, 30 from the Midwest, 23 from the

South, and 15 were from the Eastern United States. Trade

shows resulted in 131 useable questionnaires, and 27

useable questionnaires were returned from different

logger education or training classes. To test for nonresponse bias, data obtained from nonrespondents (via

phone calls) were compared to data obtained from the

original survey using student t-tests. No significant

differences (α = 0.05 level) were found between the two

data sets, which indicated that nonresponse bias did not

appear to be a problem in this case.

 Important technology transfer intermediaries were

identified from sample frame 1, loggers; sample frame 2

of 628 included state agencies (foresters), industry foresters, officers in forestry-related trade associations, extension personnel, and marketing managers in private

companies. The list of 628 individuals (intermediaries)

to be surveyed was developed from the following

sources: (1) The 1997-98 North American Fact book

(1997), (2) Cooperative Extension Service Personnel in

Forest Management and Wood Products (Cooperative

Extension Service 1995), (3) Membership Directory of

the Society of American Foresters (Society of American

Foresters 1997), (4) Directory of the National Association

of State Foresters (National Association of State Foresters

1997), and (5) Registration List of Expo Richmond ’98

Participants.4

 A mail survey was used to collect primary

data from this population. Three hundred and eighty-six

4

 Registration List. 1998. Richmond ’98 Expo. Richmond, VA.
221

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

questionnaires were returned. There were 11 incorrect

addresses and 6 respondents indicated that they did

not interact with loggers; this resulted in 369 useable

questionnaires. Respondents were segmented by different profession groups. One hundred and ninety two

respondents were state agencies (foresters), 66 industry

foresters, 20 trade association officers, 28 extension

personnel, 42 marketing or management professionals,

and 21 were other type of professionals (e.g., log buyers

or land managers). The adjusted response rate was 58

percent. To test for nonresponse bias in this study, data

obtained from nonrespondents (via phone calls) were

compared to data obtained from the original survey

using student t-tests. No significant differences (at the

α = 0.05 level) were found between the two sets of data,

which indicated that nonresponse bias was not a problem

in this part of the study.

The third part of the study included those individuals who have been involved in the design of portable

timber bridge(s) for the WIT program (sample frame 3). A

list was provided by the WIT program, which contained

20 developers. This research also added another five

developers whose names were obtained from recently

published reference and trade journals. Data from these

individuals were collected by using a mail survey. Two

respondents indicated that they were not involved in

designing portable timber bridges, and four organizations indicated that the person (who we contacted) was

either no longer with the organization or there was no

such person in the organization (confirmed via phone

calls). This resulted in 15 useable questionnaires returned (out of 19 portable timber bridge developers).

Furthermore, respondents were segmented by different

profession groups. Respondents were four employees of

state or local government, seven university professors,

two officers of trade associations, and two employees of

the federal government. To test for nonresponse bias,

data obtained from early respondents (returned after first

mailing) were compared to data obtained from late

respondents (returned after second mailing) by using the

nonparametric Mann-Whitney “U” test. No significant

differences (at the 0.05 level) were found between the

two sets of data, which indicated that nonresponse bias

did not appear to be a problem in this case.

Data Analysis

To discern for differences and problems associated with

technology transfer participants in the communication

flow diagram, several questions contained in each of

these questionnaires were analyzed. These questions

were (1) important sources in receiving (loggers), learning about (intermediaries), and disseminating (technology developers) new technology information; and (2)

important factors in the decision to use (loggers),

promote (intermediaries), and design (technology developers) portable timber bridge technology. These

questions were all asked on a Likert-type rating scale

from 1 (low) to 7 (high). Also, several open-ended questions (in each survey) were used to identify the methods

needed to increase the adoption of portable timber

bridge technology.

Analysis of differences and problems associated with

technology transfer participants used both multivariate

analysis of variance (MANOVA) and nonparametric

(Kruskal-Wallis) tests to test for significant differences

between technology transfer groups. Because the sample

size of technology developers was relatively small,

nonparametric tests are known as distribution-free tests

were used because they make no assumptions about the

underlying distribution of the data. The Kruskal-Wallis

test was used to further analyze data under nonparametric statistic assumptions. The Kruskal-Wallis test is a

nonparametric analogue to one-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA). A significance level of 0.05 was used throughout the study.

Results and Discussion

For important sources in receiving (loggers, sample

frame 1), learning (intermediaries, sample frame 2), and

disseminating (technology developers, sample frame 3)
222

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

new technology information, respondents were asked to

rate which sources of communication [on the scale of 1

(below average importance) to 7 (above average importance)] were important. However, in this question, certain

variables may conflict with intermediaries’ role in the

technology process, only loggers and technology developers were asked to rate identical variables contained

in each questionnaire.

For loggers, the number one source of communication was personal contact with other loggers, followed

by personal contact with industry foresters, logger

education or training programs, trade shows, and trade

magazine articles (table 1). For intermediaries, the most

highly rated sources of communication were seminars

or meetings, followed by trade shows, trade magazine

articles, technical or peer-reviewed journal articles,

advertisements in magazines, and personal calls from

technology developers. For important sources in disseminating new technology innovation to the logging

industry, technology developers rated personal calls to

loggers as the number one source for disseminating new

technology innovation; followed by personal calls to

industry foresters, logger’s education programs, trade

magazine articles, and companies producing new

technology (table 1).

The results indicate that end-users and developers

(in the logging industry) preferred personal contact as

the source for transferring technology information. However, intermediaries preferred seminars or meetings, trade

shows, and trade magazine articles for learning about

new technology information. Although personal contact

with others is considered the best source for transferring

technology information, it is expensive and time consuming. Using other sources for transferring new technology information could be more feasible than personal

contact. The results also indicate that other more economical methods (sources) could be useful in the transfer

of new technology information to the logging industry.

They were trade shows, trade magazine articles, and advertisements in magazines. These variables were rated

highly in each survey; therefore, they can be utilized to

determine if differences exist between technology

transfer participants.

To determine if differences existed between technology transfer participant groups, a Kruskal-Wallis test

was performed. The null hypothesis tested was “There

are no differences between technology transfer participant groups in terms of important sources for receiving,

learning, or disseminating new technology information.”

This analysis resulted in at least one variable’s p-value

(asymptotic) being less than 0.05 (table 2). Therefore, we

reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there were

significant differences between technology transfer participant groups (in terms of important sources for receiving, learning, or disseminating new technology information). Followup statistical analysis was used to look

for specific group differences (e.g., technology developer

vs. loggers, technology developers vs. intermediaries,

and intermediaries vs. loggers).

A Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to test for

differences between technology developers and loggers.

The null hypothesis tested was “There are no differences

between loggers and technology developers in terms of

important sources for receiving or disseminating new

technology information.” No significant differences were

found between loggers and technology developers (no

variable’s p-value was less than 0.05) (table 2). This

indicates that there were no gaps between loggers and

technology developers in the important sources for

receiving or disseminating new technology information. This analysis was then performed to test for the

differences between technology developers and intermediaries. The null hypothesis tested was “There are no

differences between technology developers and intermediaries in terms of important sources for learning or

disseminating new technology information.” This
223

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Table 1—Importance of sources in receiving/learning/disseminating new technology information

Technology

Loggers developers Intermediaries

Sources (n = 158) (n = 15) (n = 369)

Personal contact with other loggers

or personal calls to loggers 5.8 6.4

Personal contact with industry foresters 5.4 5.8

Logger education or training programs 5.3 5.2

Trade shows/conventions 5.1 4.6 4.8

Trade magazine articles 5.1 5.1 4.7

Sales people from companies producing

and promoting new technology 4.9 5.0

Advertisements in trade magazines or

direct mail advertisements 4.8 3.9 4.0

Extension publications or newsletters 4.7 4.3

Extension personnel 4.4

State or regional foresters 4.3 4.1

USDA, Wood in Transportation Program 3.8 4.2 3.1

Seminars or meetings 4.9

Reviewed journal articles 4.3

Personal calls from technology developers 3.8

Unsolicited literature 3.1

Scale: 1 (low) to 7 (high).

n = sample size.

Table 2—Communication preferences for receiving/learning/disseminating new technology information

P-valuesb

Loggers Developers Intermediaries Developers vs. Developers vs. Loggers vs.

Sources (n = 158)a (n = 15) (n = 369) All groups loggers intermediaries intermediaries

– – – – – – – Rating mean – – – – – – –

Trade shows 5.1 4.6 4.8 0.06 0.19 0.59 < 0.01

Trade magazine

articles 5.1 5.1 4.7 < 0.01 0.92 0.26 < 0.01

Advertisements

in magazines 4.8 3.9 4.0 < 0.01 0.09 0.91 < 0.01

WIT programc 3.8 4.2 3.1 < 0.01 0.42 0.01 < 0.01

Note - Rating means (scale range 1 to 7) and n = sample size

a

 Nonparametric, Kruskal-Wallis test. Significant at p < 0.05.

b

 p-value multivariate T-Test (Hotelling’s T2). Significant at p < 0.05.

c

 WIT = wood in transportation
224

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

analysis resulted in significant differences between technology developers and intermediaries (table 2). One

variable, the WIT program, appears to result in group

differences. Rating means for the WIT program by group

were technology developers (4.2) and intermediaries

(3.1). This indicates that the awareness level of the WIT

program was relatively low among transfer intermediaries

and intermediaries were not preferred for learning about

new technology information from the WIT program.

MANOVA analysis was performed to test for differences between loggers and intermediaries. The null

hypothesis tested was “There are no differences between

loggers and intermediaries in terms of important sources

for receiving or learning about new technology information.” This analysis resulted in significant differences

between loggers and intermediaries (Hotellings T2

-test =

0.12, F 5, 479 = 12.23; p-value = < 0.01). All variables are

involved in group separation (table 2). This indicates

that, in terms of important sources for receiving or learning about new technology information, loggers and

intermediaries have quite differing views from each

other. Rating means for advertisements in magazines by

each group were loggers (4.8) and intermediaries (4.0).

This indicates that loggers preferred receiving or learning about new technology information by reading

advertisements in magazines, but this source was not

preferred by intermediaries. Rating means for trade

shows by each group were loggers (5.1) and intermediaries (4.8). This indicates that trade shows could be a preferred source for loggers in receiving or learning about

new technology information. Rating means for trade

magazine articles by each group were loggers (5.1) and

intermediaries (4.7). This indicates that trade magazine

articles could be a good channel for transferring new

technology information to loggers. Rating means for the

WIT program by group were loggers (3.8) and intermediaries (3.1). This could indicate that in terms of the awareness level of the WIT program, loggers rated the WIT

program slightly higher than intermediaries. Although

these variables indicate significant differences between

the two groups, trade shows and trade magazine articles

were ranked highly as important sources for receiving or

learning about new technology information by both

groups (table 2).

In summary, in terms of important sources for transferring technology to the logging industry, most differences occurred at the intermediary level, especially

between loggers and intermediaries. There were no significant differences between loggers and technology

developers. The awareness level of the WIT program was

relatively low among transfer intermediaries, and intermediaries did not prefer advertisements in magazines as

an important source for learning about new technology

information. Therefore, to use the communication diagram of transferring technology to the logging industry,

technology developers should notice the differences at

the intermediary level.

When respondents were asked what the important

factors were in the choice to use (loggers), promote

(intermediaries), and design (technology developers)

portable timber bridge technology, the factors (variables)

in this question were environmental consideration, ease

of operation, availability of design information, low cost,

and regulations (table 3). Loggers indicated that the

most important factor in the decision to a use portable

timber bridge was ease of operation, which was followed

by environmental considerations. The most important

factor for intermediaries to promote portable timber

bridge technology was regulations, followed by environmental considerations and ease of operation. Technology

developers indicated that ease of operation was the most

important factor in the design of portable timber bridges,

followed by low cost (table 3).

To determine if differences existed between technology transfer participant groups, a Kruskal-Wallis test was

employed. The null hypothesis tested was “There are no

differences between technology transfer participant

groups in terms of important factors in the choice to use,

promote, or design portable timber bridge technology.”

This analysis resulted in at least one variable’s p-value
225

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

(asymptotic) being less than 0.05 (table 3). Therefore, we

reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there were

significant differences between technology transfer

participant groups (in terms of important factors in the

choice to use, promote, or design portable timber bridge

technology).

Followup statistical analysis was used to look for

specific group differences (e.g., technology developer

vs. loggers, technology developers vs. intermediaries,

and intermediaries vs. loggers). A Kruskal-Wallis test

was performed to test for differences between technology

developers and loggers. The null hypothesis tested was

“There are no differences between loggers and technology developers in terms of important factors in the

choice to use or design portable timber bridge technology.” This analysis resulted in significant differences

between technology developers and loggers. Three

variables maximized group separation: environmental

considerations, ease of operation, and regulations (table

3). Rating means for environmental considerations by

group were technology developers (5.0) and loggers

(5.8). Rating means for ease of operation by group were

technology developers (6.7) and loggers (5.9). Rating

means for regulations by group were technology developers (4.4) and loggers (5.5). This indicates that technology developers focused on low cost and ease of operation when designing portable timber bridges. End-users

focused on ease of operation and environmental consideration when making the decision to adopt portable

timber bridge technology.

A Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to test for the

differences between technology developers and intermediaries. The null hypothesis tested was “There are no

differences between transfer intermediaries and technology developers in terms of important factors in the

promotion or design of portable timber bridge technology.” This analysis resulted in significant differences

between technology developers and intermediaries (table

3). Three variables maximized group separation: environmental considerations, ease of operation, and regulations. These results were identical to the differences

between loggers and technology developers. Rating

means for environmental considerations by group were

technology developers (5.0) and intermediaries (6.1).

Rating means for ease of operation by group were

technology developers (6.7) and intermediaries (6.0).

Table 3—Communication preference in decision to use/design/promote portable timber bridge technology

P-valuesb c

Loggers Developers Intermediaries Loggers vs. Intermediaries Intermediaries

Factors (n = 158)a (n = 15) (n = 369) All groups developers vs. developers vs. loggers

– – – – – – – Rating mean – – – – – – –

Ease of operation 5.9 6.7 6.0 0.03 0.26 < 0.01 0.82

Environmental

considerations 5.8 5.0 6.1 0.02 0.03 < 0.01 0.21

Regulations 5.5 4.4 6.1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02

Low cost 5.4 6.3 5.7 0.13 0.71 0.09 0.12

Availability

of product

information 4.8 4.7 4.6 0.91 0.79 0.77 0.97

a

Rating means (scale range 1 to 7) and n = sample size.

b

Nonparametric, Kruskal-Wallis Test. A significance level at p < 0.05. c

p-value multivariate T-Test (Hotelling’s T2). A significance level at p < 0.05.
226

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Rating means for regulations by group were technology

developers (4.4) and intermediaries (6.1). This indicates

that technology developers focused more on design,

but intermediaries focused more on environmental and

regulation issues when making their decisions to promote portable timber bridge technology.

Conclusion

This research identified that there were significant differences between transfer participant groups in terms of

important factors in the choice to use, promote, or design

portable timber bridge technology. Loggers and transfer

intermediaries reported that environmental considerations and ease of use (and regulations for intermediaries) were the most important factors in the choice to use

and promote portable timber technology. However, technology developers focused on low-cost design and easyto-use products for the industry. Portable timber bridge

promoters should consider using both of them as promotional tactics (environmentally-sound and user-friendly

product) to increase the utilization of promote portable

timber bridges. For important sources in the transfer of

technology information in the logging industry, this

study indicates that personal contact is the most preferred source among transfer participants, followed by

logger education or training programs, trade shows, and

trade magazine articles. However, there were significant

differences between transfer participant groups, and most

differences occurred at the intermediary level, especially

between loggers and intermediaries. There were no

significant differences between loggers and technology

developers.

In summary, the results of this study indicate that

differences at the intermediary level (e.g., between intermediaries and loggers, intermediaries and technology

developers) may be the major transfer obstacles in the

communication diagram. And the differences found in

this study may be one reason that the adoption process

of portable timber bridge technology has been slow. A

model (fig. 1) was developed to indicate the preferred

Figure 1—Preferred communication flow for technology transfer in the logging industry.
227

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

paths for technology transfer to the logging industry. It

illustrates that direct contact with company foresters,

industrial forester, and trade associations were the most

effective methods of reaching loggers with new portable

timber bridge technology.

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1997. North American FactBook, 1997–98.

San Francisco, CA: Miller Freeman, Inc.

Baldwin, S.B.; Haymond, J.L. 1994. A system approach

to communication behavior among scientists,

foresters, and NIPF landowners. Southern Journal of

Applied Forestry. 18(4): 175–180.

Cooperative Extension Service. 1995. Cooperative

Extension Service Personnel in Forest Management

and Wood Products, 1995–1996. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Dearing, J.W. 1993. Rethinking technology transfer.

International Journal of Technology Management.

8(6/7/8): 478–485.

National Association of State Foresters. 1997. Directory

of Foresters. Washington, DC.

Irwin, H.; Moore, E. 1991. Technology transfer and

communication: lessons from Silicon Valley, Route

128, Carolina’s Research Triangle and hi-tech Texas.

Journal of Information Science. 17: 273–280.

Society of American Foresters. 1997. Membership

directory. Rockville, MD.

Piper, W.S.; Naghshpour, S. 1996. Government

technology transfer: the effective use of both push

and pull marketing strategies. International Journal

of Technology Management. 12(1): 85–94.

Rogers, E.M. 1983. Diffusion of innovations. New York:

The Free Press.

Spann, M.S.; Adams, M.; Souder, W.E. 1995. Measures

of technology transfer effectiveness: key dimensions

and differences in their use by sponsors, developers

and adopters. IEEE Transactions on Engineering

Management. 42(1): 19–29.

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

FS]. 1995. National Timber Bridge Initiative

accomplishments as of April 1995. Morgantown,

WV: Northeastern Area.
228

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726
229

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

SILVAH-OAK: Ensuring Adoption by Engaging Users in the Full

Cycle of Forest Research

Susan L. Stout,1 Pat Brose,2 Kurt Gottschalk,2 Gary Miller,2 Pete Knopp,3 Gary Rutherford,4 Mark

Deibler,4 Gary Frank,4 and Gary Gilmore4

to policymakers, managers, and other stakeholders in

useful ways. From June through December 2004, representatives from five research stations, the Forest Service

Research and Development (FS R&D) Washington office,

Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, and the National Forest System met to develop a logic model that

would help provide a framework and strategy for improving program delivery. The logic model provides a logical

chain that links desired outcomes to performance

measures.

Working over a 6-month period under the guidance

of a consultant, the team identified results (end outcomes, intermediate outcomes, activities, and measures)

to guide successful program delivery of research products and tools. Feedback on the draft logic model was

gathered during a 1-day meeting with external stakeholders. The final draft Logic Model5

 identifies the desired end outcome for Forest Service program delivery

efforts as, “FS R&D results are adopted to improve

sustainable management and use of natural resources.”

One strategy (or intermediate outcome) essential to

achievement of this result is,

“Users, partners and interested people are engaged

throughout the entire research and development cycle in:

• identifying information, research and delivery

needs;

• setting research and delivery priorities;

• planning program delivery;

5

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004. Forest

Service R&D Program Delivery Logic Model as of 21 Dec 2004.

Unpublished document. On file with: North Central Research Station

Headquarters, St. Paul, MN 55108.

Abstract

Recent Forest Service Research and Development (FS

R&D) logic modeling efforts focused on program

delivery stated that an important precondition for effective science delivery was the engagement of users and

partners throughout the full research and development

cycle. The ongoing partnership among the Pennsylvania

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Bureau of Forestry, FS R&D, and Pennsylvania State

University, focused on oak (Quercus spp.) regeneration,

provides a case study of this engagement and associated

successful science program delivery. This paper describes

the engagement, diffusion, adoption, and expanded

adoption phases of the partnership, which has changed

both practice and research.

Keywords: Forest research, oak regeneration,

program delivery, knowledge diffusion, knowledge

adoption.

Introduction

The USDA Forest Service seeks to improve delivery of

high-quality, relevant, research information and services

1

Science-based technology application coordinator, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, P.O.

Box 267, Irvine, PA 16329; Tel: 814-563-1040; e-mail:

sstout@fs.fed.us.

2

Research silviculturists, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Northeastern Research Station, P.O. Box 267, Irvine, PA

16329.

3

Computer specialist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Northeastern Research Station, P.O. Box 267, Irvine, PA

16329.

4

 Foresters, PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,

Bureau of Forestry, P.O. Box 8552 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8552.
230

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

• disseminating and supporting the use of FS R&D

products.”

The case study reported here demonstrates how

engaging users in the full cycle of research enhances

the likelihood that FS R&D results will be accepted and

implemented by practitioners in the field to enhance

sustainable management and use of natural resources.

Background

For several decades, regeneration of oak in mesic forests has been a principal challenge for managers interested in sustainable forestry (Crow 1988, Gottschalk

1983, Lorimer 1993, Miller and Kochenderfer 1998). In

Pennsylvania, these concerns have been exacerbated by

heavy deer (Cervidae L.) browsing in some parts of the

forest (Hough 1965, Leopold 1943). About half of

Pennsylvania’s 16 million acres of forest land is occupied by mixed-oak (Quercus spp.) forest types (Alerich

1993) that depend on the presence of seedlings that are

well-established in advance of harvest for successful

regeneration. Data collected in conjunction with the

1989 inventory of Pennsylvania forests suggested that

regeneration of desirable oak species was severely

limited. Fewer than 10 percent of the sampled oak/

hickory (Carya spp.) stands had sufficient advance regeneration of desirable species, including oaks, to ensure

perpetuation of these species after a disturbance at high

deer density, and only 27 percent met the criteria at low

deer density (McWilliams et al. 1995).

Faced with these challenges, the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Bureau

of Forestry (PA BoF) approached the USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station (NERS) to develop

adaptive decision tools for improving representation of

oaks in regenerating mixed-oak forests. About 15 years

earlier, NERS produced the SILVAH computerized

decision-support tools (Marquis and Ernst 1992) and

training sessions (Marquis et al. 1984, 1992), which the

PA BoF found useful for sustainable management of

northern hardwood forests. In 2000, PA BoF sought cooperation to strengthen the applicability of SILVAH to

mixed-oak forests. They provided funding to support

these efforts. The joint NERS–PA BoF work on oak

regeneration is a good example of how engaging users in

the full cycle of the research process can facilitate

adoption of research products.

Initial Steps

Designing a Collaborative Workshop

Discussions between the PA BoF and NERS resulted in a

decision to begin strengthening SILVAH’s approach to

mixed-oak forests with a collaborative workshop for

scientists and forest managers in January 2000. The PA

BoF selected several of its managers, some partners in

the private sector, and several scientists at Pennsylvania

State University (Penn State) who were working on a

related project. Scientists from two research work units

in NERS also invited managers from the Allegheny

National Forest.

The dates for the workshop were selected collaboratively, to maximize participation by the intended “experts.” The PA BoF arranged for a meeting room and

supported the travel of all its personnel and some

members from the private sector; participants from

NERS, the Allegheny National Forest, and Penn State

were supported by their own institutions.

The goals of the workshop were to review the underlying structure of the SILVAH approach, to brainstorm

ways to synthesize and integrate existing research into

that framework, and to identify and prioritize research

needs.

The Workshop

The agenda for the workshop emphasized participation

and collaboration. One short presentation at the beginning of the first day described the SILVAH approach.

The remainder of the agenda was organized around questions that needed to be answered to adapt the SILVAH

approach to mixed-oak forest types. Participants received these questions in advance of the meeting. These
231

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

included a series of questions to elicit a strategy for

assessing regeneration assets and barriers in advance of

harvest, another series of questions that would frame the

types of goals for which prescriptions would be offered

within the SILVAH-OAK system, and a third series of

questions that linked specific silvicultural activities to

goals and conditions.

The SILVAH program (Marquis and others 1992)

functions as a stand-level decision and planning tool.

It relies on data from systematic inventories of current

overstory and understory conditions and user-defined

constraints and objectives to suggest prescriptions

designed to sustain existing tree composition, favor

optimal tree growth, and promote successful natural

regeneration. Use of a systematic, research-based decision-support tool like SILVAH ensures that managers’

decisions are based on consistent and comprehensive

inventory data and analysis principles. In our experience,

this increases the confidence that managers, their

agencies, and their “clients” have in the prescription

outcomes.

Of principal interest in the SILVAH-OAK development work were understory inventory and analysis techniques and regeneration prescriptions. SILVAH relies on

a “stocked plot” concept (Marquis and Bjorkbom 1982)

for understory inventory.

Much of the existing oak regeneration research, on

the other hand, relied on dominance or success probabilities. Landmark studies conducted by Sander (1971)

and Loftis (1990) estimated the probability that seedlings and stump sprouts would successfully emerge as

dominants or codominants many years after a regeneration harvest based on site quality and preharvest size.

Brose and Van Lear (1999) documented substantial differences among different size classes of oak seedlings

in terms of their response to the release treatment of

prescribed fire.

The question-based agenda provided an excellent

context for expert knowledge from both researchers and

practitioners to add to results of existing research. For the

question, “What is a countable seedling?” (i.e., one that

has a positive probability of contributing to regeneration

success), the answers included, “Nothing smaller than 6

inches tall makes it on my District,” and “Loftis (1990)

says that only seedlings with basal diameters greater

than 0.5 inches have even a 10 percent chance of

becoming dominant, and Sander (1971) says that seedlings smaller than that can’t keep pace with the rest of

the stand.”

The group synthesized expert knowledge and research results into the SILVAH framework in two key

steps. First, they recognized that dominance probabilities and stocking criteria are conceptually inverse. As

seedling size and dominance probability increase, the

threshold number of seedlings needed for probable

success decreases. Second, they recognized that stocking

criteria would need to be developed for different size

classes of oak seedlings to allow users to easily recognize situations that call for treatments to enhance

seedling competitiveness.

In addition to these adaptations of research conducted elsewhere, the experts developed a consensus on

appropriate ways for SILVAH-OAK to address familiar

Pennsylvania regeneration challenges: overabundant

deer and interfering plants. Pennsylvania forests have

suffered the impact of overabundant deer since the late

1920s (Hough 1965, Redding 1995), and NERS scientists have completed extensive research documenting

deer impact on regeneration processes in Allegheny

hardwood forests (deCalesta 1994, Horsley and others

2003, Marquis 1981, Marquis and Brenneman 1981,

Tilghman 1989). SILVAH incorporates these research

results in the form of a deer impact index, with values

ranging from 1, for very low, to 5 for very high (Marquis

et al. 1992). The experts gathered in January 2000 relied

primarily on managers to define a key breakpoint for

SILVAH-OAK; oak regeneration could not develop

successfully or become competitive outside a deerexcluding fence at high (4) or very high (5) deer-impact

index levels. The team also had to interpolate stocking

criteria for different deer impact levels.
232

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Although the probabilities of dominance research

reflected the reality of competition among woody species, commercial and noncommercial, it did not reflect

the mix of woody interfering plants found in Pennsylvania, nor did it reflect the importance of hay-scented ferns

(Dennstaedtia punctilobula L.) and New York ferns

(Thelypteris noveboracensis L.) (Horsley 1991). The

importance of these ferns in interfering with the survival,

establishment, and growth of desirable seedlings was

known to be a secondary effect of deer overabundance

(Horsley et al. 2003) and needed to be incorporated into

the SILVAH-OAK framework.

At the insistence of managers attending the meetings, participants recognized explicitly the different

levels of difficulty associated with regenerating oaks

on xeric, relatively poorer sites versus more mesic and

productive sites. Managers find it much easier to retain

oak as a significant component of stand composition on

xeric sites where few of oak’s woody competitors are as

successful as oak at withstanding severe site conditions.

On more mesic sites, however, species such as red maple

(Acer rubrum L.) or yellow-poplar (Liriodendron

tulipifera L.), whose early aboveground growth greatly

exceeds that of the oaks, can cast such dense shade that

oak seedlings don’t survive and grow.

The products of the workshop were a list of research needs, a chart reflecting the group’s consensus

on stocking criteria for different classes of oak seedlings

(varying with deer impact index and site class), and a

prescription framework for Pennsylvania mixed-oak

stands.

Refinement, Diffusion, and Early Testing

In the subsequent months, NERS scientists, led by

Patrick Brose, refined the approach outlined at the

January 2000 meeting and translated the rough-cut

workshop results into a preliminary set of inventory

procedures and prescription charts. Brose developed

tally sheets and inventory instruction sheets that would

ensure that the data collected in understory inventories

would match with the workshop’s consensus stocking

criteria. He translated the prescription framework (“Under

what circumstances is prescribed fire appropriate? Under

what circumstances is a deer-excluding fence needed?”)

into a family of decision charts driven by data collected

in the inventory. He and other NERS scientists developed training materials related to the inventory and the

decision charts. The NERS, PA BoF, and Penn State

collaborated to design a 1-day workshop to share the

inventory processes and decision charts with the PA BoF

staff. Penn State provided a computer-equipped classroom in State College, and PA BoF managers, working

with Brose, selected sites for practice inventory exercises.

In June 2000, more than 90 PA BoF foresters participated in the workshops, which successfully diffused

these refinements of the January workshop throughout

the PA BoF and to other land management organizations.

The workshops launched a growing season “beta test” of

SILVAH-OAK. The sessions included hands-on practice

with the inventory procedures and the prescription keys

in addition to presentations explaining the ecological

principles and research results that formed the underpinnings of the new system. Other forest managers also

participated in the sessions, as there was already widespread interest in adopting the system.

In the same way that users of new computer software

are asked to “beta-test” the software by applying it to

their work, managers who attended the workshops were

asked to use the system in their inventory and prescription development work throughout the summer and to

record what worked and what didn’t. In particular, managers were skeptical of the suggestion that within each

inventoried stand, they should check the relationship

between root collar diameter and height for oak seedlings. Sometimes, especially in stands with high or variable deer impact in the recent past, shorter seedlings had
233

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

developed strong root systems without gaining in height,

as a result of deer browsing. These seedlings might have

the appearance of belonging to one class of oak seedlings, but actually belong to another, researchers suggested (see Brose and Van Lear 1999). SILVAH-OAK

developers asked managers to “beta-test” the inventory

procedure that included checking this relationship and

report back in the fall.

Further Refinements and Adoption

In late fall of 2000, representatives from each PA BoF

District that had participated in the beta testing met

with NERS and Penn State scientists to report results and

further refine the SILVAH-OAK system. This workshop

was planned collaboratively by PA BoF and NERS and

organized and financed similarly to the January 2000

workshop. Most of the beta-testers were pleased with

the new inventory system, and particularly agreed that

investigating the stand-specific root collar diameter/

seedling height relationship was worthwhile. They

were more critical of the preliminary prescription charts.

Specifically, some managers suggested that less complex

prescriptions would result in successful oak representation in regeneration on the most xeric sites.

After the workshop and the feedback from the

practical, field-based beta testing, substantial improvements were made to the prescription charts, but little

change was made to the inventory system. The PA BoF

adopted SILVAH-OAK as its standard operating procedure for prescription development in mixed-oak forests,

and NERS scientists began to focus on integrating the

new system into the SILVAH computerized decisionsupport tool and designing and installing the studies

intended to close the knowledge gaps identified at the

January 2000 meetings.

Related Research

Pennsylvania law allows the Bureau of Forestry to

allocate up to 10 percent of the receipts from timber sales

to activities designed to ensure successful regeneration

of final-harvested sites on Pennsylvania state forest land

(the 2.1 million acres of public lands administered by the

PA BoF). A later law explicitly empowered the bureau to

make investments in forestry research. The PA BoF has

established a process to review regeneration projects and

research proposals to determine needs and justify the

allocation of funds. In the years since the January 2000

meeting identified knowledge gaps in our understanding

of the oak regeneration process in Pennsylvania, studies

have been initiated to close those gaps (table 1). Funding

for many of these studies is provided by PA BoF Forest

Regeneration Fund and Forestry Research Fund. Most

of these studies are located across Pennsylvania’s ecoregions on state forest land, and substantial in-kind

support is provided by forest managers where the research studies are installed. Additional funding or inkind support comes from the Allegheny National Forest,

the Pennsylvania Game Commission, and the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. For projects investigating the role of fire and fuel reduction activities in

Pennsylvania forests, the Joint Fire Science Program is

an important funding source.

The PA BoF also has funded a related suite of studies

through Pennsylvania State University, based on data

collected in operational regeneration treatments conducted on PA BoF stands. Kim Steiner, Jim Finley, Marc

McDill, and their graduate students are principal investigators in these studies, focused primarily in the Ridge

and Valley ecoregion. These studies have suggested that

in some circumstances, survival and importance of small

oak seedlings in Pennsylvania is better than suggested

by research in other oak regions. Peter Gould, one of the

graduate students on this team, developed a model that

predicts third-decade oak stocking from understory data

collected prior to a harvest treatment, and SILVAH-OAK

incorporates this model to provide a tool for deciding

whether to undertake actions to increase the proportion

of oak in new stands.
234

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Table 1—Studies initiated to close knowledge gaps identified by managers and researchers at the SILVAH-OAK

workshop in January 2000

Study title Principal investigator Funding Objective

Oak seedling and sprout Gottschalk (USDA PA BoFb Develop Pennsylvania-specific

dominance and survival FS NERSa) probabilities to help validate the

probabilities as influenced SILVAH-OAK stocking criteria.

by site factors and environmental classification

Root development study Brose (USDA FS NERSa) PA BoFb Document the rate of root

development in black,

chestnut, northern red and

white oak seedlings at light

levels created in 3-step shelterwood harvest sequence.

Development of regeneration Miller (USDA FS NERSa

) PA BoFb Determine the impact of a residual

in two-age stands age class on the development of

regeneration after 2-age harvests.

Mountain laurel study Brose, Schuler (USDA FS JFSPc Determine the impact of silviNERSa

), Ward (CT AESd) cultural treatments on mountain

laurel, considered a hazardous

fuel by Joint Fire Science

Program. Mountain laurel also

interferes with the establishment

and growth of oak regeneration.

Fire behavior/Fuel models study Brose (USDA FS NERSa) JFSPc Evaluate the effectiveness of

standard hardwood fuel models

for predicting fire behavior in

mixed-oak forests and modify

the models as necessary.

Administrative study of shelter- Brose (USDA FS NERSa) ANFe Test the local applicability of the

wood-burn technique shelterwood-burn technique

developed in Virginia by Brose

and Van Lear.

Northern red oak seedling Brose, Long, and Horsley PA BoFb Determine the response of planted

response to forest liming (USDA FS NERSa) red oak acorns to 0, 2, 4, and 6

tons per acre of pelletized

dolomitic limestone with and

without deer exclusion.

Preharvest seedling development Gottschalk PA BoFb Determine what silvicultural

as influenced by light (USDA FS NERSa) are necessary to develop

and competition competitive advanced oak

regeneration.

a

 USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station.

b

 Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Bureau of Forestry.

c

 Joint Fire Sciences Program.

d

 Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station.

e

 Allegheny National Forest.
235

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Expanding Adoption

After a full year of operational use of SILVAH-OAK on

state forest land, interest in adoption on other lands was

increasing, as early adopters and developers shared news

of the new program, primarily by word of mouth. In addition, use of the program increased interest in continuing

education on oak ecology and silviculture, tied to the

SILVAH-OAK system

Scientists and managers involved in development of

SILVAH-OAK developed a week-long training session on

the SILVAH-OAK approach and the underlying ecological principles with land and resource managers, modeled

on the SILVAH training for Allegheny and northern hardwood forests offered by NERS scientists since 1978. The

SILVAH-OAK course was first offered in autumn 2002.

Attendees were hand-selected from a variety of management organizations to “beta-test” the training sessions.

Detailed, day-by-day, lecture-by-lecture evaluations were

solicited and received from participants, and the sessions

were modified to reflect this input. Lecturers included

scientists and managers. The sessions contained a combination of lectures, field tours, and exercises so that

participants collect inventory data, practice using the

decision charts, mark treatments in mixed-oak stands,

and visit sites from several of the ongoing research

studies. Since the “beta-test” training session, the session

has been offered four additional times in Pennsylvania to

about 120 participants from state and federal land

management agencies, nongovernmental organizations,

forest industry, and consultants. It has become a fixed

feature of the Pennsylvania forestry calendar.

In 2004, organizers of the continuing education program for certified foresters in West Virginia approached

the SILVAH-OAK team about offering the training there.

At first, the West Virginia organizers were skeptical that

people unfamiliar with extended silvicultural training

would voluntarily participate in a week-long session, so

the first year’s training in West Virginia consisted of two

2-day sessions in 2004, attended by people from all

organizations within the forestry profession in that state

and several adjoining states. The sessions were very well

received, and in 2005, the SILVAH-OAK team offered a

5-day session in West Virginia. Subsequently, a forester

from The Nature Conservancy in Ohio who attended

the first Pennsylvania training session approached the

development team about expanding SILVAH-OAK to

Ohio conditions. In 2005, the team held a meeting there

to explore the potential for developing an invasive

plants module within the SILVAH framework and to

adapt SILVAH-OAK for use in Ohio.

Increasing demand for the SILVAH-OAK training is

exceeding our capacity to conduct the training and continue to conduct research. Experience with the SILVAH

training for northern and Allegheny hardwood forests,

however, suggests some solutions. First, we have learned

that if demand is high enough, people and agencies will

find ways to address barriers such as out-of-state training

bans. Already, most SILVAH-OAK training sessions have

attendees from multiple states. Second, the training has

rewards for the scientists who participate. As scientists

spend a week together for the training sessions, they

have numerous opportunities to review new and potentially contradictory results from each other’s ongoing

research, stimulating better collaboration and rapid

integration of new results into the SILVAH framework.

Equally important, the training sessions provide ongoing

collaboration and feedback from users, who report

emerging ecological issues as well as direct feedback on

the SILVAH-OAK framework as a management tool.

In addition to the ongoing training, we have been

integrating the SILVAH-OAK inventory, analysis, and

decision-support tools within the SILVAH computer

program. The SILVAH-OAK software will analyze inventory data, provide narrative and tabular reports of

current conditions, provide a narrative description of the

recommended prescription and marking guides for any

partial cut, and provide a summary of the path through

the decision charts dictated by the inventory data. Use of
236

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

the computerized tool makes application of the SILVAHOAK process easier. An interim computerized tool that

analyzed SILVAH-OAK inventory data was released to

PA BoF personnel in 2003, and software with complete

SILVAH-OAK capabilities, including prescription generation, will be released soon. In addition, a Forest

Service General Technical Report describing the

SILVAH-OAK approach to inventory, analysis, and prescription and its ecological and research underpinnings

is in preparation.

Our long-term goals include full integration of the

research results from Penn State research projects with

the SILVAH-OAK research into an integrated and fully

field-tested approach to sustainable management of

mixed-oak forests appropriate throughout the central

Appalachian region. This framework is flexible enough

to integrate new research results from the ongoing

studies as they become available.

Lessons Learned

The SILVAH-OAK experience represents an excellent

case study of user involvement in the full cycle of research and development (table 2), as suggested by the

Forest Service logic model for program delivery. Beginning with a collaborative effort among managers and

scientists to synthesize and adapt existing literature to

a specific management challenge, this effort has led to

collaborative identification of priorities for new research

and for research to confirm results obtained elsewhere. It

also has led to collaborative development of training and

computerized program delivery tools. Equally important,

it has led to changed practice in land management in

mixed-oak forests, and all participants will watch future

monitoring data and Forest Inventory and Analysis data

to determine whether and to what extent these changed

management practices result in improved outcomes on

the ground.

Participants in this process agree that the collaborative nature of the effort increased the ease with which it

was adopted by land managers. Successful collaboration

between scientists and managers leads to improved

appreciation of the different demands of the two groups’

responsibilities. Land managers have to learn patience

with the scientific process and the time it takes to complete a scientific investigation. We have found that it is

particularly difficult for land managers, who must manage land in whatever condition they find it, to be patient

with the process of selecting research sites that minimize

sources of variability extraneous to the topic of the

research. We also have found that scientists who collaborate with managers come to an increased appreciation of

the pressures under which land managers work and of the

benefits of even preliminary research results to land and

resource managers.

This case study also shows that success breeds

success. The NERS success with SILVAH for northern

and Allegheny hardwoods made this a desirable framework for solving the oak regeneration challenge. The

success of SILVAH-OAK in Pennsylvania makes it an

attractive vehicle for work on similar problems in West

Virginia, Ohio, and other regions of the mixed-oak forest.

This case study of ensuring adoption of research

results by engaging users in the full cycle of research and

development was started well before the Forest Service

Research and Development Logic Model for Program

Delivery. But the success of the SILVAH-OAK effort

validates the Program Delivery Logic Model. We have

learned that when managers and scientists collaborate

with mutual respect, both research and management are

improved. Specifically, an integrated framework for

applying research results helps assure an internally

consistent approach to land and resource management

challenges, and collaboration with managers increases

the likelihood that research studies will address priority

management challenges and facilitates acceptance and

implementation of results by practitioners in the field.
237

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Metric Equivalents

1 acre = .405 hectares (ha)

1 ton per acre = 2.24 tonnes or megagrams per hectare

Literature Cited

Alerich, C. 1993. Forest statistics for Pennsylvania—

1978 and 1989. Resour. Bull. NE-126. Radnor, PA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 244 p.

Brose, P.H.; Van Lear, D.H. 1999. A shelterwood-burn

technique for regenerating productive upland oak

sites in the Piedmont region. Southern Journal of

Applied Forestry. 16(3): 158–163.

Crow, T.R. 1988. Reproductive mode and mechanisms

for self-replacement of northern red oak (Quercus

rubra)—a review. Forest Science. 34(1): 19–40.

deCalesta, D.S. 1994. Impact of white-tailed deer on

songbirds within managed forests in Pennsylvania.

Journal of Wildlife Management. 58: 711–718.

Gottschalk, K.W. 1983. Management strategies for

successful regeneration: oak-hickory. In: Finley, J.C.;

Cochran, R.S.; Grace, J.R., eds. Proceedings 1983

forestry issues conference, regenerating hardwood

stands. University Park, PA: Penn State University:

190–213.

Horsley, S.B. 1991. Using Roundup and Oust to control

interfering understories in Allegheny hardwood

stands. In: McCormick, L.H.; Gottschalk, K.G. eds.,

Proceedings, central hardwood forest conference.

Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-148. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern

Forest Experiment Station: 281–290.

Horsley, S.B.; Stout, S.L.; deCalesta, D.S. 2003. Whitetailed deer impact on the vegetation dynamics of a

northern hardwood forest. Ecological Applications.

13(1): 98–118.

Hough, A.F. 1965. A twenty-year record of understory

vegetational change in a virgin Pennsylvania forest.

Ecology. 46: 370–373.

Table 2—One strategy for improving adoption of research results in the Forest Service Research and Development Program Delivery Logic Model is “Users, partners, and interested people are engaged throughout the entire

research and development cycle...” This strategy lists four elements of research and development in which user

involvement is suggested. This table shows those four elements and the ways in which PA BoF was involved with

Forest Service R&D in each of those elements during the SILVAH-OAK research and development cycle.

Intermediate outcome (or strategy) 1:“Users, partners and interested people are engaged

throughout the entire research and development cycle in:

a: identifying information, research and delivery needs PA BoFb

 asks NERSa to adapt SILVAH to help manage

mixed-oak forests.

b. setting research and delivery priorities PA BoFb and NERSa hold Jan. 2000 workshop to adapt

existing research to SILVAH-OAK and identify

knowledge gaps for research.

c. planning program delivery PA BoFb

, NERSa, and Penn State offer SILVAH-OAK

training for field beta-testing, June 2000.

d. disseminating and supporting the use of Forest PA BoFb adopts SILVAH-OAK as its standard operating

Service Research and Development products. procedure for mixed oak forest management, cosponsors

annual training sessions for forest managers.

a

 USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station

b

 Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Bureau of Forestry
238

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Leopold, A.S. 1943. Deer irruptions. Wisconsin

Conservation Bulletin. 8: 3–11.

Loftis, D.L. 1990. Predicting post-harvest performance

of advance red oak reproduction in the southern

Appalachians. Forest Science. 36: 908–917.

Lorimer, C.G. 1993. Causes of the oak regeneration

problem. In: Loftis, D.; McGee, C., eds. Oak regeneration: serious problems, practical recommendations. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-84. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 14–39.

Marquis, D.A. 1981. Effect of deer browsing on timber

production in Allegheny hardwood forests of northwestern Pennsylvania. Res. Pap. NE-475. Broomall,

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 10 p.

Marquis, D.A.; Brenneman, R. 1981. The impact of deer

on forest vegetation in Pennsylvania. Gen. Tech.

Rep. NE-65. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest

Experiment Station. 7 p.

Marquis, D.A.; Bjorkbom, J.C. 1982. Guidelines for

evaluating regeneration before and after clearcutting

Allegheny hardwoods. Res. Note NE-307. Broomall,

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 7 p.

Marquis, D.A.; Ernst, R.L. 1992. User’s guide to

SILVAH: stand analysis, prescription and, management simulator program for hardwood stands of the

Alleghenies. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-162. Radnor, PA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northeastern Research Station. 124 p.

Marquis, D.A.; Ernst, R.L.; Stout, S.L. 1984. Prescribing

silvicultural treatments in hardwood stands of the

Alleghenies. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-96. Broomall, PA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 90 p.

Marquis, D.A.; Ernst, R.L.; Stout, S.L. 1992. Prescribing

silvicultural treatments in hardwood stands of the

Alleghenies. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-96 (revised).

Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.

101 p.

McWilliams, W.H.; Stout, S.L.; Bowersox, T.W.;

McCormick, L.H. 1995. Adequacy of advance

tree-seedling regeneration in Pennsylvania’s forests. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 12(4):

187–191.

Miller, G.W.; Kochenderfer, J.N. 1998. Maintaining

species diversity in the central Appalachians. Journal

of Forestry. 96(8): 28–33.

Redding, J. 1995. History of deer population trends and

forest cutting on the Allegheny National Forest. In:

Gottschalk, K.W.; Fosbroke, S.C.L., eds. Proceedings,

10 central hardwood forest conference. Gen. Tech.

Rep. NE-197. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest

Experiment Station: 214–224.

Sander, I.L. 1971. Height growth of new oak sprouts

depends on size of advance regeneration. Journal

of Forestry. 67: 809–811.

Tilghman, N.G. 1989. Impacts of white-tailed deer on

forest regeneration in northwestern Pennsylvania.

Journal of Wildlife Management. 53: 524–532.
239

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Communication During the Research Process: Experiences Within

Tropenbos International’s Country Programs

Anneke Wieman,1 J. Mulder,2 C. Naaijen,3 B. Mendez4, and F. Deul5

An important conclusion that can be drawn from

TBI’s experiences is that communication does not only

come in at the end of a research project, but it is important throughout the whole research process. Different

activities were undertaken to facilitate this process.

Developing a blueprint appeared not to be possible,

but this article may be a source of inspiration for effective means to break the research-policy barrier.

Keywords: Communication, information

dissenination focuses group discussion.

Introduction

Tropenbos International (TBI) is an international nongovernment organization (NGO) that aims to improve

tropical forest management for the benefit of people,

conservation, and sustainable development. It holds a

vision in which knowledge and skills play a central role

in improving forest governance and management. Four

critical elements jointly constitute the strategy that TBI

uses to achieve its mission (Tropenbos International

2005).

• Adequate, relevant knowledge and information

needed to make better decisions on forests are

available (by means of research).

• National human capacity is available to generate

knowledge and to use it (by means of training and

skills building).

• National forest sector organizations are able to

manage and apply information (by means of

institutional development).

• National mechanisms are operational for the

exchange of information (by means of fostering

multistakeholder knowledge dialogue).

Abstract

That research could provide important information for

forest management and governance is a statement that

probably nobody would argue. The concept is good: use

the knowledge, methods, and techniques that scientists

develop to solve problems that people in society encounter. Then, why is it that we still see a gap between

the research community and those who need the information? This case study demonstrates different approaches

as used in the different Tropenbos International (TBI)

country programs to promote uptake and application of

research results.

To facilitate the identification of problems, TBI

starts a country program with an elaborate program development process. This process is to ensure research that

addresses the information needs of policymakers, forest

managers, and users. The TBI-Ghana brings stakeholders

together in focus group discussions. These meetings

provide a forum where researchers can present research

results and identify forest-related information needs.

The TBI has also undertaken many activities to

facilitate information dissemination. Info sheets, a multimedia campaign in Indonesia, videos in Ghana, and an

exhibition in Colombia were good ways to reach a broad

audience.

1

Communications officer, Tropenbos International–Ghana, P.O. Box

UP 982, Knust, Kumasi, Ghana; Tel: 233(0) 51 60310; e-mail:

anneke@wieman.nl.

2

 TBI-Vietnam-6/1 Doan Huu Trung, Hue, Vietnam.

3

 TBI-Columbia-Cra 21 #39-35, Santa Fe de Bogota, Apartado Aereo

036062, Bogota D.E., Columbia.

4

 TBI-P.O. Box 232, 6700 AE Wageningen, The Netherlands.

5

 TBI-Indonesia- P.O. Box 494, Balikpapan 76100, Kalimantan

Timur, Indonesia.
240

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Only a limited amount of information and knowledge generated through research is translated into better

forest policies and management. The TBI’s experience is

that promoting uptake and application of research results

goes beyond information dissemination. The results of

irrelevant research will not be applied even if the results

are communicated well. Communication between the researchers and the problem owners like policymakers and

forest managers is crucial throughout the whole research

process. Communication is important at the initial stage

to identify the problems, during the research process to

keep stakeholders involved, and at the final stage to

disseminate research findings (fig. 1).

Communication plays an important role in improving the interaction between researchers and stakeholders

in all stages of the research process and improved interaction is crucial to uptake and application of research

results. This case study demonstrates the different approaches, as used in the different TBI country programs,

to achieve the same goal of realizing better forest

governance and management based on knowledge and

skills.

Identification of Problems

Realizing improved forest governance and management based on knowledge and skills starts at the beginning of the research process. The TBI’s philosophy is that

research, capacity, and information can work for good

policy and management, if the research, in its conception

and implementation, pays due respect to the needs and

aspirations of forest users, managers, and policymakers.

Program Development Process

Country programs are TBI’s prime means of achieving

the TBI mission. Each country program starts with a

thorough program development process. The aim of this

process is to shape a program based on information and

capacity needs of a country.

This approach has gradually evolved from TBI

program development experiences in the past and is

currently being applied in the Suriname Program. The

principal elements of the program development strategy

are outlined below (Tropenbos International 2004).

Draft an issues paper—

An “Issues Paper” outlines issues and challenges facing

the forest sector and identifies their information component and their relevance for TBI’s strategy. The most

efficient approach is to base the issues paper on existing

documentation (such as forest policies, national forest

programs, etc.) that has been produced by using consultative processes and to verify and validate that information

by means of stakeholder consultation. The information

component and its translation into possible research

questions are validated by the research community.

Map the structure of the forestry sector—

An institutional scan gives an inventory of the structure

of the forest sector and identifies who is responsible for

the generation and application of information. Capacity

needs are identified. The institutional scan can be

incorporated into the issues paper.

Form Bi-National Committee (BNC)—

Key decisions on scope and priorities of the program are

made by the BNC. The BNC must take account of stakeholder views and the issues paper.

Figure 1—The role communication plays in all stages of

the research process.
241

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Organize stakeholder consultations—

Appropriate stakeholder consultation ensures that program objectives match the priorities of forest users and

policymakers. “Appropriate” implies that the timing

and scale of consultation is planned to achieve optimum

benefits of consultation and avoid the pitfalls of raising

unachievable expectations and obtaining unfocused

short-term wish lists. Inputs (issues identification) by forest managers and policymakers are separated from inputs

(research responses) by the scientific community. This is

to avoid science-driven research agendas as TBI aims

applied and demand-driven research.

Send out a call for proposals—

The research community is invited to submit research

projects that match issues prioritized by the BNC by

means of a “restricted call” for proposals. The rationale is

to balance the needs of attracting innovative research

with those of creating firm partnerships, achieving

capacity building and institutional development goals

within the limitations of restricted budgets and timeconsuming application procedures.

Draft a multiannual plan—

The multiannual plan must be seen as a component of a

country strategy, i.e., the view by TBI and its partners on

the state of information in the forest sector, with priorities

and strategies to address the main issues. More than a

description of the content of the program, the multiannual plan provides context, focus, and direction for

further development of the country program.

Focus Group Discussion

The TBI-Ghana brings stakeholders together in focus

group discussions. The aim of the focus group discussion

is to facilitate two-way communication. The TBI-Ghana

identifies a topical forest-related issue, invites experts

or stakeholder representatives for a presentation followed

by a discussion. These meetings not only provide a

forum where researchers can present research results and

identify forest-related information needs, they also

enable stakeholders to understand each other’s points

of view.

Based on the experience of TBI-Ghana gathered in

the four meetings so far, TBI-Ghana drafted guidelines

for successful focus group discussions (Nketiah et al.

2004).

Identify key societal forestry issues—

These may be issues on which different opinions, especially those held by different interest groups, are paraded

as facts or issues that are considered delicate and are

therefore not openly discussed. They could also be

contentious issues that need to be subjected to critical

analysis or debate. For each issue, the objective of the

discussion should be very clear and shared by the

participants from the start.

Select a facilitator or moderator—

A good facilitator or moderator should be independent

and perceived as neutral. The person should also be able

to focus the discussion to achieve the set objectives.

Identify resource people to prepare discussion papers—

Such papers provide factual information from credible or

authentic sources, but could also present the view of a

stakeholder group (i.e., position papers).

Ensure quality papers and presentations—

A resource person is selected for his/her expert knowledge on the topic and therefore a high-quality paper can

be expected. It is important to brief the presenter about

the kind of forum and the kind of participants that are expected. This is to ensure the relevance of the paper and

the presentation for this specific forum and, in case the

presenter is a scientist, to avoid a purely scientific presentation. Presentation guidelines sent in advance will

contribute to the relevance of the paper.

Select a representative group of participants—

The participants must represent the different stakeholders

involved and the representation must be balanced. These
242

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

may include opinion leaders and key actors. If one group

dominates, the outcome of the discussion could give a

wrong impression.

Ensure an effective followup—

Followup activities are essential if the effort is not to

remain a “talk shop”: just an exchange of opinions. At

TBI-Ghana, the focus group discussion is followed by

proceedings, and at least one info sheet on the topic and

possibly a research project if the participants indicate that

further research is necessary. The proceedings of the discussions should be prepared promptly and, where necessary, relevant extracts prepared as tailor-made information

for important target groups. To this end, a team of rapporteurs may be appointed to cover the discussions.

The focus group discussions have proven to be a

good activity to facilitate communication among many

stakeholders. The fact that several organizations are

involved and the combination of different tools—the

discussion, publication of the proceedings, and info

sheets—make this activity very helpful in establishing

the links between researchers and stakeholders. Researchers have presented (intermediate) results to a

relevant and interested audience, and the discussions

served as input for some research projects.

Involving Stakeholders

An interactive process of problem identification that has

resulted in relevant research projects is not a guarantee

for application and uptake of research results. During the

research project, it is important to involve partners who

may eventually use the generated information. Involve

partners in such a way that they feel it is their project.

One of the constraints identified is that researchers do

not always see the importance of sharing information or

sometimes they lack communication skills. The participatory research approach that characterizes TBI-Colombia and communication trainings as given in Vietnam

and Ghana illustrates efforts to improve integration of

research and communication.

Participatory Approach

The Colombian dialogue of knowledge—

From academic research toward a knowledge dialogue

with local indigenous people in the Colombian AmazonAt TBI-Colombia, research is not only a matter of

students and researchers, but also of indigenous people

and nature conservers like national parks. Everybody

needs to participate actively in the project, and therefore

needs to agree on the objectives. The TBI-Colombia’s

participatory approach aims to involve all relevant stakeholders in the research process. Interaction between the

academic and the indigenous approach is what TBIColombia calls the “Dialogue of Knowledge,” based on

respect and thoughtful listening.

Lessons Learned

Make the different interests explicit—

The interests of all partners should be clear in the project

proposal, so that people participate in a project that they

feel is theirs. Local initiatives, ideas from the field, and a

bottom-up approach are most effective and should be

listened to.

Work with local people as coinvestigators—

In many cases, it is possible to work with local people as

coinvestigators. This enhances the integration and creates

a relationship of trust. The local people often have their

own way of investigating, and this certainly is another

important source of knowledge, complementary to the

academic way of doing research.

Set up an investigation working group—

To organize participatory research it is recommended to

form a committee or working group with representatives

of all stakeholders: e.g., the state forest or nature conservation unit, the local people, and, eventually, other

groups. This working group can deal with research

questions, set priorities, and look for funding possibilities. It also enhances the communication between the

different participants and forms a bridge through which

research is facilitated.
243

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Define research lines—

To link the different research projects, the definition of

research lines can be helpful. Research lines define a

framework, in which future projects can follow former

ones and form a first criterion for the acceptance of

project proposals. This could be done by the committee

or working group.

Communication—

During the whole process, communication plays an

important role. The inter-institutional working group or

research committee provides a platform where ideas on

research can be exchanged and where questions and

answers are formulated. During the research project, there

is generous contact between the researchers, local people,

and stakeholders, because this will be necessary for the

final stage of the project, when the results have to be

implemented. Frequent workshops, even when the final

results are not yet ready, help to formulate adequate

answers that serve the local society and the nature conservation organizations. Communication is the basis for a

flexible approach: each time the researcher gets in contact with a stakeholder, he gets input to adapt his approach to society’s questions.

Communication Training

During a TBI-Vietnam workshop in Hue in central

Vietnam in October 2002, the head of the national Forestry Science Institute of Vietnam roughly estimated that

currently only around 5 percent of the forestry research

results are applied in practice. The main communication

problems were perceived to be limited information dissemination capacities and the limited awareness of the

importance of information sharing. TBI-Vietnam therefore provided communication trainings for forestryrelated organizations.

The aim of the communication training was to

strengthen the capacity of key forestry organizations in

the field of information dissemination, developing communication tools and presentation skills, and to raise

their awareness about the importance of sharing information. The target groups were local stakeholders in Hue

(governmental and NGOs in the agricultural and forestry

sector) and the Vietnamese TBI-Vietnam research

partners.

Based on the experiences and lessons learned from

the communication courses given in Vietnam and Ghana,

a set of guidelines is given below.

Overcome language barriers—

A challenge in giving communication trainings in

Vietnam was to overcome the language barrier. The

communication officer worked closely together with a

Vietnamese translator and together they developed the

English and Vietnamese training materials for 3 modules

and provided 11 training courses. The participants gave

their presentations in Vietnamese so it was difficult for the

Dutch communication officer to assess the content of the

presentation. Therefore, she first trained the participants

in evaluating each other’s presentations, with a special

focus on structure and content. The communication officer mainly concentrated on evaluating the body language and the general impression. The participants had

the chance to practice their own presentation skills, but

also learned how to evaluate each other and give constructive feedback.

Include interactive exercises—

It is essential to offer practical exercises and interactive

modules during the training. Listening to a trainer may

be interesting, but experiencing the effect of a practical

example is a much more powerful tool to convince

trainees. They will remember these practical or visual

experiences, sometimes even years after the training.

Practicing with case studies, especially those brought in

by the participants themselves, gives the trainees the

opportunity to immediately apply the theory and models

in their work. They learn how to use what they just

learned, and if they face any problems, these can be

discussed and solved with the support of the trainer.
244

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

Create clear links—

Communication training becomes livelier if cases and

examples are used that participants can identify with.

It is therefore recommended to start with a discussion in

which participants tell what kind of communication

problems they experience during their daily work. Any

problems or challenges they mention can be referred back

to during the training. Communication with minorities

who speak their own local languages was, for example,

an issue for some participants. The multilingual training

courses made clear, that with improvisation and good

communication tools, clear communication is possible

also in situations in which people do not speak the same

language.

Use a multimedia mix—

A mix of media such as PowerPoint slides, handouts,

background reading materials, and group exercises with

case studies were used during the courses. The different

means supported each other in getting the message

across. It’s also useful to bring extra literature or (visual)

examples to the training, in case the participants are

interested in learning more about the topic.

Ensure followup—

Apart from the paper and training materials handed out

to the participants, it’s useful to provide a CD with all

materials in order to facilitate the participants or the

hosting organizations to continue the communication

training activities with their own local trainers who have

attended the communication course.

Information Dissemination

Even if problem identification and the research process

has been an interactive process, efforts need to be made

to translate research results into improved forest management and policy. Once relevant information has been

generated, it is still an art to create tailor-made information and get it to the right people or to reach a broad and

relevant audience.

One can imagine that a policymaker or forest manager may not have the time to read a voluminous research report, the language might be too technical, or

they may not immediately see the use of the information.

Some extra effort may be needed to get the information

accepted by the people who could use the information.

Info sheets, exhibitions, videos, and a multimedia

campaign illustrate the different approaches as used in

the different country programs. A description of each

approach and the lessons learned are described below.

Multimedia Campaign “ULIN”

 “Ulin,” named after the local timber ironwood, is

initiated by several organizations from the environmental sector in East Kalimantan, Indonesia, to increase

awareness and to improve the understanding of the

current status and use of East Kalimantan’s environment.

The specific objectives are to:

• Inform and increase awareness of decisionmakers

and major players about the current status and use

of the environment and the environmental consequences of decisions taken by them.

• Increase knowledge of environmental issues within

educational institutes.

• Increase awareness and knowledge of environmental

issues of the general public.

The target group of the campaign consists of

decisionmakers in the government (provincial, district,

and city), the private sector, education institutes, NGOs,

and the general public of East Kalimantan. Since the

start of this campaign, eight themes have been covered;

forestry, social forestry, watershed management, coastal

resource management, conservation (twice), rehabilitation, and illegal logging.

Several tools are used in this media campaign such

as fact sheets, roundtable discussions, radio programs,

TV talk shows, and the newspaper. Every month an environmental theme is selected and highlighted for the

month by using several media. This theme is selected by
245

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

an editorial board on the advice of a group of experts/

stakeholders. The editing board consists of 14 people

from NGOs and media.

After selecting the theme, a roundtable discussion

with stakeholders and experts for that specific issue

takes place. The roundtable is a high-profile discussion

to search for more indepth information and explore the

different opinions and views on the issues. The participants are representatives from government, private companies, NGOs, universities, and the press. On average,

between 20 and 30 people attend a roundtable discussion. A special fact sheet is distributed in advance to

the participants and the press, who also attend the

roundtable. This fact sheet serves as kickoff to discuss

the theme, and several have already been published by

local newspapers in East Kalimantan.

Outcomes of the roundtable discussions have been

discussed during radio broadcasts, and after each roundtable, several radio programs related to the theme are

broadcast via the local radio. Once per month an “Ulin”

talk show is broadcast on local television. For these talk

shows, experts and stakeholders are invited to have a

live discussion on television. During each talk show,

the audience and people watching at home can ask

questions.

Each month is concluded with a special four-page

“Ulin” section in the local newspaper (the Kaltim Post)

providing news, background information, opinions, and

interviews on the theme. The section consists of articles,

news items, interviews, and book reviews covering a

wide range of aspects of the theme. On the back page,

contact details are mentioned where people can give

their feedback.

Video

In Ghana, videos are used to inform the target

audience about a project, about project results, and the

whole TBI country program in Ghana. The combination

of moving images, sounds, and text makes the tool very

appropriate for this goal. Videos are used in three ways

within the TBI-Ghana country program. One project

video has been created about the interdisciplinary and

intercultural student project. It is shown to students to

raise their interest to participate in the project, and to

possible project partners. Videos have also been used to

facilitate the bottom-up information flow from forestfringe communities to forest managers and policymakers

and to show during meetings to identify areas for

collaboration.

Combination with other activities—

If the target audience is expected to undertake steps after

seeing the video, it is better to show the video in combination with a meeting or workshop.

Write a script—

It is important to get the aim of the video straight, what

the desired impact is, and who the target group is. The

best way to integrate this information into the video is to

write a script and define which excerpts should support

the core message.

Choose the appropriate length of the video—

The most effective duration of the video depends on how

it is used. In the case of the TBI-Ghana where the videos

are used in meetings or dissemination workshops, the

ideal duration seems to be not more than 10 minutes.

Maximize impact—

The combination of moving images, sound, and text

increases the impact of a message significantly.

Info Sheet

The aim of an info sheet is to present tailor-made information in an attractive and easy-to-read format to

promote uptake and application of research results.

Especially its high adaptability, and therefore the suitability to make the info sheet tailor-made for defined

target groups, is seen as an important factor for its success. Within TBI, info sheets are often used in combination with other activities such as focus group discussions
246

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

or radio and TV programs like in the multimedia campaign. They are produced in different languages, depending on the country and event in which they are going to

be used. For that reason, the possible cultural or language barriers are minimized. Info sheets are created

on request (i.e., for a specific meeting) but also to proactively provide information to partners or interested

parties.

Ensure appropriate content—

In terms of content, the info sheet must:

• Contain information based on high-quality and

sound research results, stakeholders’ consultations,

processes, or any other reliable source.

• Be relevant for decisionmaking in terms of forest

policy and sustainable forest management.

• Be in line with TBI’s mission and vision.

• Give information tailored to address real, local, or

international information needs.

Use an attractive format—

Regarding the format, the info sheet should:

• Be easy to read and understand for relevant target

groups and stakeholders different from scientists and

researchers (nonscientific language).

• Have an attractive format for the reader.

• Be easy to circulate as hard and soft copy.

• Have high adaptability to different target groups.

Interaction researcher-communication officer—

A constraint in the production of info sheets is that researchers sometimes find it difficult to write easy-to-read

text for stakeholders outside the scientific world. The

communication units play an important role to support,

and sometimes to write, the text for the info sheets.

Use its high adaptability—

The advantage of an info sheet is that it can be easily

produced and therefore is suitable to be tailor-made for

defined target groups and to address many topics.

Exhibition

TBI-Colombia has developed a set of communication

tools to facilitate a dialogue between academic and traditional knowledge and to promote the uptake and use of

information and knowledge by policymakers and forest

managers, including indigenous communities and the

National Park Service of Colombia. The tool described

below is an exhibition about feathers and crowns.

The aim of the exhibition was to raise awareness

among the general public about indigenous people: the

way they live and the challenges they meet. The exhibition would further help to establish a dialogue of knowledge between indigenous and nonindigenous people in

Colombia.

In the last few years, indigenous communities have

prepared a wealth of drawings and written documents

illustrating their knowledge and beliefs just waiting to

be shown to a bigger audience. Based on the experience

of TBI-Colombia, some guidelines can be given for a

successful exhibition.

Choose the right theme—

An important factor for success is picking the right theme.

It should be a theme that has been worked on (by indigenous researchers) for a long time, which is thoroughly

known and has “traditional values,” which touches the

people. The relation between the theme and natural

resource management is important, and the theme should

have a high aesthetic value. One of the exhibitions by

TBI-Colombia was on feathers and crowns. The traditional crowns have been used for ages. The crowns have a

symbolic value and are a reflection of their society. The

link with forest management is clear: the crowns are made

of feathers of parrots and other colorful birds; therefore,

you have to know where to find these and how to collect

them without damaging the birds. The theme pointed out

the relation between indigenous people and their role in

sustainable forest management.
247

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Find the right occasion—

Another success factor is finding an occasion where the

target group likely visits the exhibition. The feathers and

crowns exhibition was presented at a fair in Bogota,

which is held every 2 years and receives a lot of visitors.

Having an exhibition in the capital, where most people

live, is an advantage. The fair has its own publicity and

public relation channels that work well, so there was no

need to worry about logistics, about where people could

park their car or who would be at the entrance to sell the

tickets. The public has a broad interest in research-related

themes.

Give background information—

Another factor of success might be that the senders of the

information, the indigenous people, played an active role

in the elaboration of materials and the presentation during the exhibition. This strengthened the message that

was sent. However, the distance between the indigenous

culture and the more “western” culture of Colombians

necessitates a translator. Sometimes contextual or historical topics are so logical and clear to the indigenous

people that they forget that without this context, other

people don’t get the message. A cultural translator has to

paint a décor, a context.

Conclusion

The TBI has shared an example of different tools that

have been developed in four continents to bridge the

gap between the research community and problem

owners such as policymakers and forest managers. Each

communication activity contributed in one way or the

other to this objective. There is no blueprint for transferring scientific information to different stakeholders and

vice versa. Based on the experiences gained in the different communication activities, three conclusions can

be drawn:

• In each communication activity, a combination

of tools seems to be most effective. The examples of

the multimedia campaign in Indonesia and the focus

group discussions in Ghana combined with info

sheets and proceedings seem to have a high impact

through the combination of tools and the involvement of several organizations.

• To ensure that the researchers’ priority receives the

attention it deserves, a full-time staff position for

communication in organizations aiming to link

research to policy processes is highly recommended.

• The most important conclusion of all is that the

research process and research organization needs to

be reorganized in order to improve uptake and application of research results. Communication must

be integrated to all phases of the research process.

From proposal to the use of research results, communication plays an important role. Also during the

research project, there should be generous contact

between the researchers, local people, and stakeholders, because this will be necessary for the final

stage of the project, when the results have to be

implemented. Communication is the basis for a

flexible approach: at each phase, the researcher gets

input to adapt his approach to society’s questions.

References

Nketiah, K.S.; Wieman, A.; Agyare Kwabi, P. 2005.

Bridging science and society to conserve Ghana’s

rainforest. In: Proceedings of the 7th extension

Working Party symposium. [Place of publication

unknown]: IUFRO Working Party 6.06.03 extension

413.

Tropenbos International. 2005. TBI mission and

strategy document. Unpublished document. On file

with: B. Mendez. TBI-6700 AE Wageningen, The

Netherlands.

Tropenbos International. 2004. Country program

document Surinam. Unpublished document. On file

with: B. Mendez. TBI-6700 AE Wageningen, The

Netherlands.
248

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726
249

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Public Ideas and Local Policy in Urban Forestry: Reflections on a

Program of Portable Science

Kathleen L. Wolf1

Keywords: Urban forestry, policy, public ideas,

technology transfer, innovation diffusion.

Introduction

Urban forests are “green infrastructure” systems that provide many public goods, and may include patches of native forests, street trees, park groves, and any other trees

growing on public or private property. Extensive research

has demonstrated environmental, community economics,

and psychosocial benefits (Dwyer and Schroeder 1994,

Kuo 2003, Wolf 2005). Such benefits are best achieved

through comprehensive planning and management of

urban trees and forests. Yet many U.S. communities conduct urban forestry work on an ad hoc basis in reaction

to citizen complaints or emergencies, rather than in a

proactive, systematic way.

Policy guidance is needed to address the complexity

of urban forest conditions and implement best practices

in a systematic way. Policy development and adoption

can be difficult. Urban forestry touches the lives of many

community groups. Planting and managing trees in the

midst of high-density human settlements entails acknowledgment and involvement of diverse stakeholders.

Technology transfer is essentially a communication

process through which the results of scientific research

are put into use (Eveland 1987). Urban forestry research

has addressed “how” to sustain trees in cities (such as

planting and pruning practices) and the reasons “why”

communities should invest in an urban forestry program

(such as benefit/costs analysis).

This paper presents the products of a social science

research program that has focused on “why” local

governments should consider and adopt urban forestry

Abstract

The status of urban forestry is still at the “public idea”

level in many communities, evolving to become policy

in some municipalities. Planning for trees in the midst

of high-density human settlements entails a complex

mosaic of land use conditions, diverse stakeholders,

and institutional practices. Many research outreach

efforts address practical urban tree management practices. Policy-oriented technology transfer is also needed,

as local decisionmakers may not be adequately informed

of the benefits and functions of trees in cities. Policy

outreach focuses on “why” rather than “how” concerning

trees in cities. This paper features reflections-in-action

about a policy-oriented technology transfer program.

Key approaches are described such as (1) audience

identification and access, (2) character and content

of informational tools, (3) information dissemination

practices, and (4) the role of “problem pioneers” and

“champions.” These efforts would benefit from formal

appraisal and assessment, helping to refocus the program

and provide insights for other similar programs. Specific

evaluations might include (1) development of performance guidelines for print materials, (2) methodologies

for tracing and tracking diffusion pathways, (3) monitoring the performance of technology transfer efforts in

terms of innovation adoption, (4) focused assessment

of “problem pioneer” and “champion” activities and

influences, and (5) opportunities for integrating this

outreach program with other similar efforts considering

potential efficiencies and synergies.

1 Research social scientist, College of Forest Resources, University

of Washington, Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195; Tel: 206-780-3619;

e-mail: kwolf@u.washington.edu.
250

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

policy. The research has addressed the values and interests of urban stakeholder groups that may not be fully

aware of the benefits and functions of trees in cities.

Such groups may have significant influence with local

decisionmakers.

Urban forestry policy outcomes are the result of

interactions of community values, stakeholder perceptions, and political solutions. This paper first provides

background on public ideas and the role of science, then

describes outcomes of an extended urban forestry technology transfer program, and ends with recommendations for future research.

Public Ideas and Policy

Forestry has a long tradition of technology transfer, often

associated with extension systems of universities and research stations. Technology transfer serves as a mechanism for dispersing new ideas, and subsequent adoption

is dependent on complex cultural and interpersonal

processes (Rogers 2003).

Many technology transfer efforts are aimed at economic optimization by landowners or industries through

production enhancement, efficiency gains, and costs

management. Urban forestry, on the other hand, is rarely

a revenue-generating enterprise. It is a “public idea” that

can potentially guide public action for the purposes of

improved community health and welfare (Moore 1988).

The ideas that matter to communities and organizations are those that first conceptualize or frame a problem, then articulate solutions, often focusing on a subset

of all possible strategies. Public ideas can give coherence

and meaning to organizations (including local government), and guide investments for the future (Moore

1988). With regard to science, public ideas often set out

the questions for which evidence is necessary.

There are many examples of well-established policy

concerning systems or institutions that generate public

goods but started as innovative public ideas: lighthouse

installations, seatbelt laws, pollution abatement, and

emergency response systems. Public ideas span various

geographic scales and locations. They also differ in the

degree to which they involve capital investment or

individual behavior change. Some policies that originated as public ideas maintain their relevance as time

passes; others are replaced by emergent innovations.

Change agents may be able to move public ideas to

broader acceptance through careful analysis and strategic action (Moore 1988). Important steps include (1)

diagnosis of what is already in place and its precedents,

(2) respect for existing ideas and policies and the circumstances of their earlier adoption, (3) being able to

clarify how existing or old ideas are limited, (4) communicate new ideas (though complex) in a straightforward

and practical way; and (5) careful judgment of the capacity of the new idea to significantly improve existing

systems.

In many locales, urban forestry is a public idea, with

varying degrees of transition to policy. Most research on

the study of innovation diffusion has focused on adoption of tangible products or processes, often focusing on

the individual consumer as the unit of analysis (Owen et

al. 2002). In contrast, a significant amount of urban forestry technology transfer efforts are aimed at addressing

the large-scale needs of environmental and social

systems of communities.

There has been little research to understand how

effective such R&D efforts have been and their causal

relationship to adoption of urban forestry innovations.

Social systems complicate the science-to-policy process,

but attention to this dimension is essential for effective

information transfer (Spilsbury and Nasi 2006). Particular

challenges include (1) diversity of change agents and

adopters, (2) political jurisdiction types and geographic

scale, (3) varied governance and decisionmaking mechanisms, and (4) diversity of professional disciplines

within local government and their associated networks

of technology dispersal (planners versus engineers, for

instance).
251

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Science Contributions

There is a strong, though often indirect, relationship

between science and public ideas. Public ideas entail

public deliberation and, if adopted, then action. Science

is often the source of innovative ideas and practices.

Science can inform public debate, providing models of

how a community should deal with an issue or delineating a range of practical actions to fulfill public choices

of desired outcomes.

Scientists and technology managers often underestimate the difficulty of the technology transfer process.

Technologists may think of the technology transfer

process as a one-way movement of a technology from a

research and development source to a receptor system of

key individuals. When technology transfer occurs too

slowly, it is thought to be the fault of the receptors.

Public ideas rarely become powerful based on

empirical evidence and science communications alone

(Moore 1988). Clear reasoning or carefully developed

and interpreted facts are important, yet rarely make

ideas convincing to the general populace. Rather, ideas

become anchored in people’s minds through illustrative anecdotes, simple diagrams and pictures, or connections with broad generalities about human nature and

social responsibilities. Fact and logic can reinforce and

strengthen the hold of idea but will rarely replace simpler

public perceptions.

The process of sharing research results might more

accurately be thought of as a communication process.

Such an interactive process is two-way, with messages

flowing in both directions. Individuals in a receptor organization may actively seek information about possible answers to self-perceived problems. Or they may

be directed to information by issue advocates. Thus, the

science transfer process is a transaction in which questions, answers, clarifications, and other information flow

in both directions.

Urban Forestry Science

Forests, trees, and canopy cover are being reduced at

alarming rates as urbanization continues in the United

States. Actual and projected decline in extent and condition of the urban forest has been documented in many

U.S. communities (American Forests 2006, Nowak and

Walton 2005). Forest loss increasingly affects human

health and welfare, as nearly 80 percent of the U.S. population resides in urbanized areas.

Much of the recent research in urban forestry articulates various urban environmental problems, and then

illustrates how the presence of urban forests diminishes

or mitigates impacts. The psychosocial significance of

trees in cities has become another substantial scientific

contribution. Experiences of nature are profoundly important to individuals, small groups, and entire communities (Kuo 2003).

In addition, social research has assessed the assumptions of stakeholders who are not resource managers, but

whose practices impact forest resources. For instance, law

enforcement officers may encourage vegetation removal

within high-density residential areas to eliminate the

supposed hiding places of criminals, yet analysis does

not support an association of landscape planting and

crime (Kuo and Sullivan 2001)

Scientific efforts will continue to address situations

of perceived conflicts concerning trees in cities. The resulting knowledge can be applied to counter both public

underestimations of benefits and overstatement of risks

of urban trees. Yet integration of science with policy will

never be as straightforward as scientists may hope for.

Moore (1998) noted that, “instead of thinking of [public]

ideas as scientific conclusions, we must recognize them

as society’s effort, groping in the dark, to help itself deal

with intractable problems” (p. 83).

A Program of Portable Science

I have conducted a research program on the human

dimensions of urban forestry for about 10 years during
252

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

my affiliation with the College of Forest Resources at

the University of Washington. Much of the science has

addressed public perceptions with regard to trees in

particular urban land use contexts, such as central

business districts and transportation systems.

An associated policy-oriented technology transfer

program has been developed. Outreach materials have

been derived from my own and other sources of social

science research. These portable science products are a

condensed packaging of scientific results and are readily

accessible by nonacademics. They are targeted to

decisionmakers and key stakeholders within municipal

governments and organizations.

The materials of this research program differ little

from the standard practices of most technology transfer

programs. The key elements are research summaries presented as fact sheets, a Web site portal that provides

access to print materials, research outcomes summarized

as PowerPoint presentations, and submittal of research

outcomes to professional publications. Materials can be

accessed at www.cfr.washington.edu/research.envmind.

Construction and distribution of the materials has

been based both on theory and user feedback. Some elements and content of the technology transfer efforts were

intentional and have been sustained throughout the program. Others were adaptive in that there were changes

prompted by anecdotal feedback on product effects and

consequences.

Schön (1983) described the knowledge-building

potential of the “reflective practitioner.” Knowing-inpractice can be achieved if a person makes intentional

effort to reflect on what was done and learned within

professional activity. Using “reflection-in-action” a

self-evaluator enters an “experiment” by weighing

the problem situation and the solution response. One

initiates an interaction within a situation of uncertainty

with repeated efforts, and with each attempt attains a

greater degree of insight and understanding. This process

includes an appreciation for the unintended and secondary effects of action.

Through successive actions and practices the reflective practitioner generates a capacity to understand

broader actions and implications. In a “conversation”

with a situation, the practitioner strives to generate ideas

or artifacts that are coherent and understandable. Although the content of the outreach materials has been

derived from rigorous science, I have used reflection-inaction to develop and expand the technology transfer

program.

Products, Processes, and Reflections

Print products have been constructed based on theoretical principles about how people process information.

Early work in cognitive psychology suggests that people

actively retain five plus-or-minus two information bits.

Although readers and viewers can certainly understand

greater content complexity, chunking the content into a

small number of categories enables both comprehension

and memorableness. Thus, all fact sheets are organized

by about five ideas (using headings and subheadings),

and primary messages are graphically highlighted. Web

site content is likewise “chunked” into topics that are

readily distinguished. This telegraphs major content to

viewers and conveys an informational structure that may

be retained.

My social science research typically involves extensive collaborations with urban stakeholder organizations

and key informants, such as nonprofit directors, urban

planners, and community development specialists. These

relationships provide insights for technology transfer.

The language and presentation of outreach materials is

crafted to coalesce with the communications norms of

professional cultures (such as business people or transportation officials). Thus the outreach materials depart

from the standard scientific article format. Results and

conclusions often precede a brief overview of methods.

Statistical outcomes are used to highlight key findings.

Practical applications are featured. All material is

presented in a graphic format that is visually appealing

and readily understood. A balance of scientific tone and
253

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

readability is pursued in order to project scientific

credibility yet acknowledge the needs of various reader

audiences.

The Web site serves multiple functions. The main

page displays a comprehensive outline of my entire research program. Each research subarea has been prepared

as a separate page so that public requests for information

can be referred to a distinct Web portal. Print materials—

fact sheets, higher quality professional publications

and scientific articles—are downloadable as PDF files.

Associated Web sites and information sources are linked,

enhancing both the substantive content of the messages

and the credibility of a small-scale research program.

I strategically share outreach products to enhance

their position in policy situations. Strategies have

included (1) announcements in professional list serves

and organization membership lists, (2) submittal of research notes to professional publications, (3) requests

for placement of my Web links on related Web sites, (4)

mailing or e-mailing new publications to people or

organizations known for their high level of networking

activity, and (5) inclusion of Web access information in

all my presentations or meeting announcements.

The emergence of transfer pathways beyond my primary efforts has been quite interesting. Fact sheet and

PowerPoint content has been adapted to secondary publications by professional and advocacy groups. Maintaining the fidelity of the scientific information can be

a challenge as newsletter and trade publications editors

may not understand the scientific derivation of fact bits.

Some authors or editors will corroborate with the source,

others rely on the clarity of the source materials for

accuracy. Of particular concern are the tertiary publications, as second-generation interpretations seem prone to

inaccuracy or overstatement.

It’s been said that technology transfer is a body contact sport. Technologies are transferred through interpersonal networks (Valente 1994), and the nature of these

networks, in large part, contributes to effectiveness of

technology transfer.

Rogers (2003) articulated phases of the innovation

adoption process. Agenda setting is the first formal stage

and is the process whereby organizations seek innovations to cope with a problem. Agenda setting is typically

followed by matching, redefining/restructuring, clarifying, and routinizing processes. Public ideas may precede

agenda setting as communities take some time to recognize and frame incipient problems, such as those

associated with trees and forests in cities. If a public idea

concerning urban forestry matures into a policy response

within local government, then other science-based

sources provide implementation guidelines.

My research appears to be used to promote the

public idea of urban forestry, and for local agenda setting. My initial efforts in technology transfer involved

creating products. As products moved into use, my

outreach activity expanded to include stakeholder

interactions.

“Problem pioneers” are individuals that perceive a

problem that is not only new, but is destined to be important to an entire field or the community at some time

in the future. They are often ahead of their time, and

feel compelled to address a problem before others either

detect it or recognize its significance (Patton 2002).

Local problem pioneers are often the initiators of uptake

of my research outreach, and later either become champions or recruit others to endorse urban forestry.

“Champions” are influential agents in the scienceto-policy transfer. Rogers (2003) defined a champion

as a charismatic individual who provides enthusiastic

support for an innovation, thus overcoming indifference

or resistance. Champions may occupy key positions or

have other means of influence. They are often respected

as opinion leaders both within their organizations and

in their extended professional networks. They typically

demonstrate well-honed interpersonal and negotiating

skills in working with other people.

Problem pioneers and champions throughout North

America have accessed print materials or sponsored

travel for public presentations in order to initiate public
254

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-726

dialog about urban forestry in their communities. I have

made presentations to city councils, planning commissions, municipal agency staff, community service groups

(such as Kiwanis), and business organizations (such as

Chambers of Commerce). These personalized presentations appear to magnify the influence of the scientific

data, owing to interpretations that connect to local

conditions and social circumstances.

Proposed Research

My formal research program has addressed issues associated with the social and institutional contexts of

urban forestry. This series of national-level studies has

focused on questions of “why” trees belong in cities,

rather than providing technologies about “how” to best

plant and manage urban forests. Communities can use

this knowledge to build public ideas about urban forestry that may evolve into policy.

My reflection-in-action has generated knowledge

that is different from, but can become the basis of

scholarly investigation. A formal appraisal and assessment would help to refine the technology transfer program and provide insights for other similar programs.

Evaluation should include feedback loops so that

end-users can provide information about their experiences with products and perceived effectiveness. Such

feedback would provide guidance on the format and

presentation of information tools such that they more

rapidly enter the policy process and better inform

decisionmaking. Scientists typically avoid becoming

advocates for policy, so soliciting information from

informed and effective policy participants could

enhance production and delivery of research outcomes.

Second, identification of key audiences within

policy development settings is essential but not readily

done. The full range of potential receivers and their

policy inclinations has not been analyzed. Once receivers are identified, the character and the content of the

informational tools could be crafted to better meet their

informational needs.

Research opportunities are endless; here are possibilities:

• Develop evaluative performance guidelines for print

materials.

• Develop methods for tracing and tracking materials

diffusion pathways.

• Monitor the performance of technology transfer

efforts, in terms of innovation adoption, from

outreach to action.

• Conduct focused assessment of “problem pioneer”

and “champion” activities and influences.

• Discover sociopolitical dynamics that may

encourage a decisionmaker to be more receptive to

urban forestry policy development (such as Tree City

USA awards or community sense of place).

• Present opportunities for integrating this outreach

program with other similar programs, considering

potential efficiencies and synergies.

Rogers (2002) noted that, given the tremendous

public investment in research and development, it is surprising that more research attention has not been given

to investigating technology transfer. The scholarly study

of this process is underfunded and dissipated among a

variety of disciplines. Better theoretical conceptualization and more effective methodological approaches are

needed to illuminate the nature of the technology transfer process. These limitations have been observed concerning tangible products but apply to policy-oriented

technology transfer as well. Improved science-based

policy interventions could encourage greater quantity

and quality of urban forests, improving quality of life for

millions of people.

Acknowledgments

Grant support for the research and technology transfer

products reported here was provided by the USDA Forest

Service on recommendation of the National Urban and

Community Forestry Advisory Council.
255

Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology

Literature Cited

American Forests. 2006. Urban ecosystem analysis.

www.americanforests.org/resources/urbanforests/

analysis.php. (June 5).

Dwyer, J.F.; Schroeder, H.W. 1994. The human

dimensions of urban forestry. Journal of

Arboriculture. 92: 12–16.

Eveland, J.D. 1987. Diffusion, technology transfer, and

implementation. Knowledge. 8(2): 303–322.

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

social ecology. Journal of Arboriculture. 29(3):

148–155.

Kuo, F.E.; Sullivan, W.C. 2001. Environment and crime

in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime?

Environment and Behavior. 33(3): 343–367.

Moore, M.H. 1988. What sort of ideas become public

ideas? In: Reich, R.B., ed. The power of public ideas.

Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing. 265 p.

Nowak, D.J.; Walton, J.T. 2005. Projected urban growth

(2000-2050) and its estimated impact on the U.S.

forest resource. Journal of Forestry. 103(8): 383–389.

Owen, R.; Ntoko, A.; Ding, Z.; Dong, J. 2002. Public

policy and diffusion of innovation. Social Indicators

Research. 60: 179–190.

Patton, J.D. 2002. The role of problem pioneers in

creative innovation. Creativity Research Journal.

14(1): 111–126.

Rogers, E.M. 2002. The nature of technology transfer.

Science Communication. 23(3): 323–341.

Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. New

York: Free Press. 551 p.

Schön, D.A. 1983. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

374 p.

Spilsbury, M.; Nasi, R. 2006. The interface of policy

research and the policy development process:

challenges posed to the forestry community. Forest

Policy and Economics. 8(2): 193–205.

Valente, T.W. 1994. Network models of the diffusion of

innovations. Creskill, NJ: Hampton. 171 p.

Wolf, K.L. 2005. Business district streetscapes, trees

and consumer response. Journal of Forestry. 103(8):

396–400.
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
Pacific Northwest Research Station

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

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

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

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300