Agency Capacity for 

Recreation Science and 

Management: The Case 

of the U.S. Forest Service

Lee K. Cerveny and Clare M. Ryan

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station 

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-757

June 2008
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

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

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

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

Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service 

to a growing Nation.

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

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

opportunity provider and employer.

Authors

Lee K. Cerveny is a research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 400 N 34th St., Seattle, WA 

98103; Clare M. Ryan is an associate professor, College of Forest Resources, 

University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105. 

Cover photos: upper left: U.S. Forest Service; upper right: Kelly Lawrence, 

U.S Forest Service; lower left: U.S. Forest Service; lower right: courtesy 

of USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Abstract

Cerveny, Lee K.; Ryan, Clare M. 2008. Agency capacity for recreation science 

and management: the case of the U.S. Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-757. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 78 p. 

This report examines the capacity of natural resource agencies to generate scientific 

knowledge and information for use by resource managers in planning and decisionmaking. This exploratory study focused on recreation in the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. A semistructured, open-ended interview guide elicited 

insights from 58 managers and 28 researchers about recreation issues, information 

exchange, and research-management interactions. Data were coded and analyzed 

using Atlas.ti®, a qualitative analysis software program. Results indicate that 

recreation managers seek information to address user conflicts and manage diverse 

activities across sites and landscapes. Managers do not always turn to the research 

community when looking for scientific information and are uncertain about the 

proper channels for communication. Managers consult a variety of information 

sources and aggregate various types of scientific information for use in planning 

and management. Managers desire greater and more diverse interactions with 

researchers to promote knowledge exchange useful for addressing recreation problems. Barriers to interaction include organizational differences between management and research, researcher responsiveness, relevance of information to manager 

needs, and the lack of formal interaction opportunities. Several structural processes 

were suggested to facilitate opportunities for greater interaction and information 

exchange. 

Keywords: Organizational capacity, natural resources, recreation, science 

integration.
Summary

An important aspect of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (U.S. 

Forest Service) mission is to manage public forests and grasslands based on 

scientific knowledge of natural processes and human interactions. U.S. Forest 

Service Research and Development (R&D) is charged with the production of basic 

and applied scientific research related to forest processes. Forest Service managers 

use models, tools, and information generated by scientists in making resource 

decisions. Changes to the external and internal operating environment of the U.S. 

Forest Service at the end of the 20th century have affected production and use of 

scientific information. Environmental regulation, public engagement in natural 

resource governance, and legislation that emphasizes planning and environmental 

analysis all have affected the decisionmaking environment, with implications for 

the role of science. The question arises as to whether the Forest Service has evolved 

from an agency of forestry experts to an agency of decision-process managers with 

the capacity to incorporate a much broader array of scientific information into 

management decisions. 

The overarching goal of this study is to understand the capacity of the U.S. 

Forest Service, both research and management branches, to respond to current 

and future resource management challenges by incorporating scientific information from Forest Service R&D and other sources into its management decision 

processes. Specifically, the study focused on gaining a better understanding of 

the agency’s capacity to identify, frame, and address resource management issues 

through the use of scientific information. To narrow our scope, we focused on one 

area of forest management—outdoor recreation. We asked recreation managers 

to identify recreation issues and information needs. We explored how managers 

incorporate scientific knowledge in addressing recreation problems and making 

decisions. We also sought information about what types of interactions managers and researchers valued and what institutional factors promote or inhibit these 

interactions.

Telephone and in-person interviews were conducted with a sample of 49 

managers at various levels of the Forest Service as well as 8 social scientists in the 

National Forest System. In addition, 20 recreation researchers in Forest Service 

R&D and 8 university researchers were interviewed to discuss science exchange 

and interaction. Data were analyzed and coded by using Atlas.ti® software.1 A 

selection of key findings is summarized below. 

1The 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.
Recreation Issues and Information Needs

Recreation managers in the Forest Service were asked, “What have emerged as the 

most significant recreation management issues that you have faced over the course 

of your career?” Responses were grouped into five prominent themes: 

• Motorized recreation

• Recreation alignment and facilities planning

• Biophysical effects of outdoor recreation

• Resource conflict and noncompatible use

• Meeting visitor demand; resource pressure

Agency capacity to identify issues and frame problems was affected by 

(a) time and budget constraints of managers, (b) fewer numbers of formally 

trained recreation professionals, (c) reduced opportunities for recreation planning, 

and (d) perceived declines in collaboration with researchers.

The types of scientific information managers thought would be useful to 

address everyday management challenges were grouped into several thematic areas: 

• Understanding recreation visitors (demographics, motivations, preferences, 

behaviors) in a particular region or national forest 

• Understanding motorized recreation use (motivations, preferences, 

use patterns)

• Spatial tools for recreation planning—how recreation use changes 

over a landscape 

• Measuring wilderness carrying capacity—how much human use a 

region will support 

• Measuring biophysical change related to recreation use 

Barriers to conveying information needs included 

• A lack of time to identify information needs and translate them into 

researchable problems 

• A lack of understanding of the process of conveying information needs 

both within the Forest Service and to the scientific community

• Difficulty conveying information needs in a scientific framework. 

Sources of Scientific Information

Recreation managers appeared to be highly resourceful when it came to identifying 

and accessing various sources of information needed to address recreation 

problems and issues. For basic scientific research, literature reviews, conceptual 

frameworks, and decision tools, they used Forest Service R&D or universities. 

For applied research, particularly administrative studies that catered to a specific 
geographic area, they relied on university partners, enterprise teams, or consulting 

firms. For data used in planning and environmental analysis, they used state or 

county sources, consulting firms, nongovernmental organizations, and Forest 

Service databases such as the National Visitor Use Monitoring program. For casebased knowledge of emerging practices, they often accessed internal professional 

networks for experiential knowledge from enduring recreation professionals. 

Managers relied on different sources at various times in the planning and 

decisionmaking process and pieced together information in an iterative fashion. 

Communication of Scientific Information for 

Recreation Management

Managers identified preferred mechanisms for communicating scientific 

information including:

• Web-based or Internet sources 

• Brief technical bulletins and report summaries

• Workshops, meetings, conferences, and symposia

• Targeted training (onsite)

• Scientific journals

• Knowledge syntheses

Several challenges or constraints made the application of scientific findings 

difficult, including: 

• Lack of formal training in recreation

• Information (“sensory”) overload (too much available information) 

• Lack of relevant information related to a particular problem or issue

• Inability to generalize from cases and apply to local setting

• Lack of specificity of information

• Short “shelf-life” of recreation research

• Absence of resources to use or apply scientific information. 

Interactions Between Managers and Researchers

Managers and researchers in the Forest Service were asked to characterize their 

ideal type of interaction. Although many similarities between managers and 

researchers were evident, other important differences emerged from this analysis. 

Features of “ideal interactions” included: 

• Engagement in mutual problem framing and collaborative research 

• Direct communication of information needs from managers to researchers

• Research briefings, presentations, and information sharing sessions
• Field trips and other opportunities for on-the-ground understanding

• Personal ties characterized by long-term dialogue, trust and mutual 

consultation

• Formal relations between research stations (or labs) and management units.

There was general agreement about the most prominent barriers to achieving 

these interactions. Analysis points to the need for awareness of differences between 

research and management, acknowledgement of roles, and creating opportunities 

for interaction and exchange. The following barriers rose to the surface for research 

and management: 

• Organizational differences between research and management (researchers 

and managers occupy different worlds)

• Time and workload constraints

• Absence of networking opportunities

• Relevance of recreation research 

• Inability to fund recreation research

• Lack of awareness of existing research expertise 

• Undeveloped appreciation for science among recreation professionals. 

Strategies for Building and Sustaining Capacity for 

Recreation Research

The exchange of scientific information and the interaction between managers and 

scientists would both lead to stronger professional networks in recreation, allowing recreation professionals to develop a common language, identity, and sense of 

purpose about the importance of recreation. Several structures and processes were 

identified that promote information exchange and create a “community of practice” 

among recreation scientists and managers. These structures attempt to organize 

existing research and legitimize the use of professional knowledge and case studies 

as sources of information. 

• Recreation information clearinghouse and research directory 

• Recreation extension agents and boundary spanners to translate research 

findings 

• Case studies to demonstrate best recreation practices and strategies

• Recreation synthesis project to summarize existing state of recreation 

knowledge

• Renewed support for national recreation meetings to enhance networks

• Forest field trips and sabbaticals to bring researchers into the realm of the 

recreation manager. 
Faced with growing responsibilities and diminished human capacity, recreation managers in the Forest Service face constraints in their ability to proactively 

address recreation challenges using scientific information. The Forest Service 

may consider evaluating its existing capacity to generate basic knowledge and to 

conduct recreation research that is timely, relevant, and responsive to manager’s 

needs. Forest Service R&D maintains its multifaceted role as a provider of both 

fundamental (theory-driven) and applied research, and as a producer of innovative 

tools, models, and applications for land managers. Yet, facing its own budgetary 

and personnel constraints, Forest Service R&D may not be equipped to respond 

to ongoing agency needs for applied science and data in the changing context of 

planning and decisionmaking. 
Contents

1 Introduction

2 Research Objectives

3 What Is Organizational Capacity?

4 Communication of Scientific Knowledge and Information

5 The Structure of Science in the U.S. Forest Service

9 Study Design and Approach

12 Forest Service Capacity for Recreation Management

12 Recreation as a Core Program Area

16 Capacity Trends in Forest Service Recreation

18 Manager Perceptions of Forest Service Recreation

23 Recreation Issues and Challenges

27 Future Questions

27 Agency Capacity for Science Exchange and Interaction

27 Exchanging Science Information for Recreation Management

34 Communicating Scientific Knowledge and Information

42 Future Questions

43 Research-Management Interactions 

57 Future Questions

57 Building and Sustaining Recreation Research Capacity

58 Current Recreation Research in the Forest Service

59 Perceived Role of Forest Service Research and Development

62 Strategies for Bridging Research and Management

65 Areas of Future Research

66 Conclusions

68 Acknowledgments

69 References

75 Appendix: Interview Guide—Managers

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

Introduction 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (hereafter U.S. Forest Service 

or Forest Service) has long emphasized the role of scientific knowledge in informing 

resource management policies and decisions. Since its early roots in Progressiveera conservation, the agency has championed the paradigm of technical rationality 

and empirical science as a basis for sound forest management practices that 

benefit all Americans (Kaufman 1960, Wellman 1987). Agency recognition of the 

role of science was embodied in the creation of the Forest Service Research and 

Development (R&D) division, one of three separately funded branches that make up 

the Forest Service. Research stations support basic scientific research and develop 

tools and applications in forestry sciences, which ultimately feed into management 

decisions (Duncan 2000). Natural resource managers in the Forest Service consult 

with researchers in Forest Service R&D as well as other sources to acquire the 

scientific information they need to make management decisions. The administrative 

structure that features an autonomous research division within a natural resource 

institution is rather unique among federal agencies in the United States. 

Changes in the external and internal operating environment of the U.S. Forest 

Service at the end of the 20th century have affected the way scientific information is 

produced and used. Regulations and public involvement processes stemming from 

key legislation in the 1960s and 1970s added greater complexity to the agency’s ability to make and implement resource management decisions (Mills and Clark 2001). 

The Forest Service faced legal challenges from advocacy organizations and industry 

groups seeking to influence management decisions (Andrews and Edwards 2004, 

Jones and Taylor 1995). Sources of scientific information spread beyond the borders 

of the agency to include universities, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), 

private industry, and “blue ribbon” panels (Lach et al. 2003). Moreover, the agency’s 

emphasis on forest planning and environmental analysis altered the daily practice of 

resource managers and fundamentally affected the nature, type, and form of scientific information being sought. At the same time, the agency adopted an ecosystem 

management approach, which encouraged land managers and scientists to conceptualize problems on multiple temporal and spatial scales and across jurisdictional 

boundaries (Yaffee 1999). Managers were prompted to integrate biophysical and 

socioeconomic information to address issues. The role of science in natural resource 

decisionmaking, while becoming more critical, also was becoming more complex 

(Mills and Clark 2001). 

As a result of these changes in the everyday operating environment, and the 

structure and conduct of scientific research, the question arises as to whether the 

Forest Service has evolved from an agency of forestry experts to an agency of 

Changes in the external 

and internal operating 

environment of the U.S. 

Forest Service at the 

end of the 20th century 

have affected the way 

scientific information is 

produced and used.
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

decision-process managers with the capacity to incorporate a much broader array 

of scientific information into management decisions. How has the interaction 

between scientists and managers changed in response to changes in the operating 

environment? 

Research Objectives 

Given the dramatic changes in administrative and operational context for the Forest 

Service over the last 30 years, it is likely that the roles and relationships of agency 

scientists and managers have changed as well. The overarching goal of this study 

is to understand the capacity of the Forest Service, both research and management 

branches, to respond to current and future resource management challenges by 

incorporating scientific information from Forest Service R&D and other sources 

into its management decision processes. Specifically, the study focused on gaining a better understanding of the agency’s capacity to identify, frame, and address 

resource management issues through the use of scientific information. To narrow 

our scope, we focused on outdoor recreation. 

Recreation is a relatively new emphasis area for the Forest Service, and its 

development can be traced through oral history accounts. The Forest Service began 

to build capacity in recreation after passing of the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act 

in 1960. Growing environmental awareness and interest in outdoor activity filled 

the forests with hikers, anglers, and boaters. In the 1970s, public land managers 

worked with universities to train a future generation of recreation specialists and 

scientists. National and regional recreation conferences brought managers and 

researchers together to find ways science could be used to address management 

challenges. Close interactions between recreation managers and researchers in the 

1970s and 1980s led to the development of science-based applications, such as the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), that responded to management needs 

(Manning 1999). Professional networks of scientists and managers in recreation 

developed over time as a result of common educational training and shared 

commitment to effective recreation management. 

Since the 1990s, multiple factors have contributed to the erosion of longenduring recreation networks important for scientific exchange. Agency personnel 

from both research and management were drawn into comprehensive planning 

processes and efforts to improve the quality of public involvement. Both National 

Forest System (NFS) and Forest Service R&D adopted a “human dimensions” 

approach, which included recreation alongside other public uses and values. As 

recreation professionals advanced or retired in the organization, recreation positions 

were left unfilled or were combined with other parallel duties, increasing work-
Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

loads. In many parts of the country, agency personnel working in timber, range, 

or other programs were reassigned to recreation. Meanwhile, budget constraints 

limited the frequency of national and regional recreation conferences after the 

1990s. These factors, along with natural attrition, resulted in a recreation workforce 

with weakened professional networks and gaps in formal recreation training. 

These observations formed the impetus for this study to understand the ways 

recreation information is currently produced and used by the agency and the nature 

of science/management interactions. Our implicit assumption is that reduced 

opportunities for interaction between managers and researchers after the 1990s led 

to a decline in collegiality, which has inhibited research collaboration. Specifically, 

we focused on how managers define recreation issues, determine their needs for 

scientific information, and communicate information needs to the research community. We explored how managers incorporate scientific knowledge in addressing 

recreation problems and making decisions. We also sought information about what 

types of interactions managers and researchers value and what institutional factors 

promote or inhibit these interactions. The exploratory nature of this study allowed 

us to delve into many facets of this interface between recreation management and 

research to understand important connections and influences that shape institutional behavior. 

What Is Organizational Capacity? 

Organizational capacity is a conceptual framework useful for examining sciencemanagement interactions, particularly, how agencies develop structures, processes, 

and institutions for the creation and distribution of knowledge. Organizational 

capacity refers to the internal ability of an institution to define and realize goals in 

an effective and sustainable manner (Horton et al. 2003). An organization’s capacity includes resources (human, financial, technological), knowledge, and processes 

used to achieve its mission. All of these systems are designed and orchestrated to 

achieve the agency’s goals. When an agency embarks upon a new initiative, such 

as when the U.S. Forest Service embraced recreation as one of its multiple forest 

uses in the 1960s, the organization’s structure, personnel systems, and budgetary 

processes must be developed to meet this new need. 

Organizational capacity is understood as a dynamic process requiring continual 

adjustment to new conditions. An organization also must be responsive to factors in 

the external and internal environment that may affect its ability to achieve its goals 

(Horton et al. 2003). Changes in the external environment, such as political climate, 

economic stability, technology advances, or shifts in public values, require the 

agency to adjust its processes and structures. Changes in the organization’s internal 

Organizational capacity 

refers to the internal 

ability of an institution 

to define and realize 

goals in an effective 

and sustainable 

manner.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

environment also can affect its ability to achieve its purpose, such as leadership, use 

of incentives, management style, communication processes, professional networks, 

work ethic, morale, and embedded organizational values. An organization with 

adequate organizational structure, human resources, and financial resources may 

still fail to achieve its goals because of problems with the internal operating environment. 

An important aspect of the Forest Service mission is to manage public forests 

and grasslands based on scientific knowledge of natural processes and human 

interactions. Structures, processes, and rules designed to promote effective sciencemanagement interactions were based on progressive-era philosophies of rational 

decisionmaking and scientific forestry (Clarke and McCool 1996). In the Forest 

Service, this reverence for science has been institutionalized in the development 

of the R&D division. How has the agency adjusted to new conditions by shifting 

organizational capacity to generate and incorporate scientific information to 

address everyday problems and decisions? 

Communication of Scientific Knowledge and Information 

Managers in natural resource agencies are charged with making decisions informed 

by science. Recent papers have explored the importance of understanding factors 

that influence effective communication between researchers and land managers 

and the adoption of scientific knowledge (Wright 2007). In this report, we define 

the term “scientific information” to mean the gathering, processing, and organizing 

of scientific data to describe a particular condition, object, or situation. We define 

“scientific knowledge” as the application and interpretation of scientific information, based on judgments, experience, or experimentation over time. Scientific 

knowledge may be understood as exposure to innovative tools, concepts, or cases 

and an understanding of how to apply them to existing management conditions. 

Our operating assumption was that when making decisions, recreation managers 

rely on scientific knowledge and information, as well as models and tools that have 

been developed based on scientific research. 

Managers obtain scientific information through communication with researchers, technology transfer specialists, and other resource professionals (Wright 2007). 

Research may be presented to managers at professional conferences, workshops, 

training sessions, or through individual consultancies. In addition, managers and 

researchers may work together collaboratively to identify information needs and 

establish a research plan. Barriers in communication between researchers and 

managers can inhibit the application of scientific knowledge and information used 

to address resource management problems (Wright 2006, 2007). Studies have 

An important aspect 

of the Forest Service 

mission is to manage 

public forests and 

grasslands based on 

scientific knowledge of 

natural processes and 

human interactions.
Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

identified several barriers in the communication and adoption of scientific research 

by managers, such as (a) lack of knowledge of information sources, (b) lack of 

access to information or technology, (c) cultural differences between research and 

management professionals, and (d) lack of capacity (resources, personnel, time, and 

funds) to access research (Blahna and Kruger 2007, USDA Forest Service 1995, 

Warrington 2007, Wright 2007). 

Some research has shown that effective communication occurs when individuals share common background, training, institutional setting, and purpose (Rogers 

1995). In other words, a longer history of communicating together in the same 

operating environment contributes to greater understanding, utilization, and implementation of science in decisionmaking (Wright 2007). A cultural barrier between 

research and management in natural resource agencies has been described previously, that reflects the differences in worldview, language systems, incentives, and 

responsibilities (USDA Forest Service 1995, Warrington 2007). These barriers may 

inhibit the development of trust leading to the free-flow of information between 

scientists and managers. The term “community of practice” is used to describe 

collegial learning communities devoted to information exchange and learning to 

achieve a common purpose (Wenger 1999). The development of a professional 

network or “community of practice” between research and management may lead 

to the production of scientific information that is relevant, problem-focused, and 

applicable to managers, while meeting criteria of scientists. 

The Structure of Science in the U.S. Forest Service 

The U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905 within the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the administrative agency to manage forest reserves for the public good 

(Steen 2004). In 2007, the Forest Service supported a budget of $5 billion and 

employed 33,000 workers (USDA Forest Service 2007b). The U.S. Forest Service 

consists of three parallel organizations. National Forest Systems oversees 193 

million acres of forests and grasslands. The NFS administrative headquarters is 

located in Washington, DC. Nine regional offices oversee activities in 155 national 

forests and 20 national grasslands (fig. 1). These units are further divided into more 

than 600 ranger districts. The NFS develops policy and makes decisions affecting 

the daily management of forests and grasslands. The Forest Service R&D division 

consists of five experimental research stations, along with the Forest Products 

Laboratory and the International Institute for Tropical Forestry. The R&D division 

is responsible for conducting basic and applied science related to forest resources. 

The State and Private Forestry division (S&PF) works with nonfederal landowners 

to provide the transfer of technical knowledge in forest health. Early years of forest 

The term “community 

of practice” is used 

to describe collegial 

learning communities 

devoted to information 

exchange and learning 

to achieve a common 

purpose.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

management emphasized consumptive goods, especially timber, minerals, and 

grazing, as well as fire management. The Multiple Use Act Sustained Yield Act of 

1960 expanded the agency’s mission to serve diverse public uses of national forest 

resources, including recreation. 

A belief in scientific forestry was an important tenet of forest management that 

has become embedded in Forest Service culture. Foresters and natural resource 

managers were expected to incorporate state-of-the-art scientific knowledge 

and rational decisionmaking to manage public lands (Lachapelle et al. 2003). 

This emphasis on science-based decisionmaking has remained a salient feature 

of natural resource management and was institutionalized in the creation of the 

R&D division. With the adoption of ecosystem management in the 1990s, the need 

for integrated science at different biophysical scales was great (Grumbine 1994, 

Kennedy and Quigley 1998). Yet, in recent years, the role of science has been 

challenged and it has become recognized that science is one of many factors 

at work in the process of public lands decisionmaking. 

Scientific research related to forest resources has long been an important part 

of the U.S. Forest Service organization. In 1901, the first Bureau of Forestry Chief, 

Gifford Pinchot, established the office of Special Investigations to conduct forest research. One year later, research was established as a distinct division in the 

Bureau of Forestry with 55 employees (Steen 1998). The agency developed its first 

Figure 1—Forest Service regions. 
Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

experimental station in 1908 near Flagstaff, Arizona, and 2 years later established 

the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin. By 1921, eight experimental stations were located throughout the country. During the early years, research 

units were developed under the authority of district offices, with research tied to 

regional and local needs. In 1915, the research division was established as a distinct 

branch of the U.S. Forest Service under direct authority of the Washington office 

(Steen 1998). National leaders embraced the idea of a separate and distinct research 

entity that would maintain credibility and objectivity through the independence to 

publish scientific findings. Meanwhile, applied research and site-specific studies 

would be conducted through “administrative studies” initiated by NFS managers. 

The relation of the research division to the NFS was not explicitly defined from the 

beginning, and many foresters urged leaders to tie research more directly to management needs (Mowrer 2005). The role and relation between Forest Service R&D 

and the NFS would be perpetually negotiated throughout the decades to follow. 

Forest Service R&D gained prominence throughout the 20th century. In 1928, 

the McSweeney-McNary Act allocated an annual budget for R&D and land was 

withdrawn from the forest reserves to establish experimental forests. The Forest 

and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act (1978) expanded the research 

division into areas of renewable resource management, environment, protection, 

utilization, and recreation. Research areas of responsibility are determined with 

input from a variety of stakeholders, policymakers, and clients including the NFS. 

The U.S. Forest Service remains one of the only federal agencies without an 

explicit division or program for technology transfer to natural resource managers 

(Mowrer 2005). Technology transfer refers to the process of sharing knowledge 

and technical tools developed by research units with practitioners and the public. 

Technology transfer specialists do exist in research stations under a variety of 

titles and are sometimes housed in explicit research units or programs, but much 

variability exists among research stations and programs. One program that 

emphasizes science information transfer is the Focused Science Delivery (FSD) 

Program in the Pacific Northwest Research Station. The FSD staff work with 

scientists to synthesize research results and communicate findings to resource 

professionals. The program’s recreation and tourism initiative sponsored several 

studies and products in the period from 2004 to 2007. The extent to which 

individual scientists or research units are responsible for technology transfer 

remains unclear. At present, scientist commitment to technology transfer is highly 

variable and depends more on personal commitment than a formal reward system. 

Forest Service R&D makes up a small portion of the total budget for the U.S. 

Forest Service. In 2007, R&D represented 6.5 percent of the total Forest Service 

Forest Service R&D 

is responsible for 

“carrying out basic 

and applied research 

to study biological, 

physical, and social 

sciences related to 

very diverse forests 

and rangelands.” 
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

budget, compared to 34 percent for NFS and 43 percent for wildland fire management. Funding for Forest Service R&D has increased steadily and modestly since 

1985, growing an average of 6 percent annually from $140 million to $280 million 

in 2007. Meanwhile, employment in Forest Service R&D declined from 2,494 fulltime equivalent positions in 2002 to an estimated 2,109 positions in 2008 (USDA 

Forest Service 2007b). Similarly, there has been a sharp decline in the number of 

permanent scientists from 985 in 1985 to 547 in 2007. An estimated 33 percent 

of existing scientists will be eligible for retirement by 2010. This shift in overall 

research capacity has implications for the agency’s ability to conduct research 

internally.

Research scientists have compensated for employment declines by hiring 

temporary scientists and postdoctoral researchers and by working with university 

collaborators. Moreover, in response to budget declines, there is greater emphasis 

on seeking soft money sources from foundations such as the National Science 

Foundation to augment base level funding. This trend presents a unique challenge 

for recreation scientists, who may not have as many sources to draw from compared 

to counterparts in fire or biophysical sciences. 

Forest Service managers also seek out scientific information from external 

sources, including university researchers, private consultants, and nonprofit agencies. Universities across the country, particularly those with schools of forestry or 

natural resources, provide a supply of scholars and students to conduct research 

and collect data related to natural resource problems. The McIntire-Stennis Act of 

1962 authorized forestry research at the land-grant colleges, which played a role in 

fostering recreation science. University researchers may work directly for a national 

forest or in collaboration with a station scientist to engage in studies relevant to land 

managers. Projects may be short-term data collection efforts or long-term research 

studies. Managers also may contract with private or nonprofit agencies to collect 

data or provide information useful in planning and decisionmaking, such as demographic, economic, or market data. 

A more recent source of knowledge and information may be found in the enterprise teams, which are autonomous units within the Forest Service with expertise in 

data collection and analysis. The Enterprise program began in 1997 in response to 

the National Performance Review. Enterprise teams mirror private business models 

and draw from a wide range of Forest Service employees who provide expertise in 

particular fields. Services are marketed both within U.S. Forest Service and other 

federal agencies as well as state and local governments, nonprofit agencies and the 

private sector. Enterprise teams compete with the private sector and offer an internal choice for engaging in research and data collection. The program emphasizes 
Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

timely deliverables, high-quality products, and competitive pricing. In 2007, there 

were 16 enterprise teams based in three Forest Service regions. One enterprise 

team, Recreation Solutions, focuses on helping forest service staff to work with 

recreation partners to implement recreation programs. 

Study Design and Approach 

This exploratory study used multiple methods including indepth interviews, analysis of secondary literature, and archival data (Creswell 1998). A grounded theory 

approach was used, emphasizing a systematic, inductive discovery of concepts 

that emerged from analysis of the data (Strauss and Corbin 1998). This study leads 

to the development of propositions and hypotheses that will be tested in future 

research. 

Research phases— 

Research was conducted in three successive phases in 2005 and 2006 that built on 

knowledge gained in the previous phase. 

Phase 1—

The initial project phase included a pilot study of nine key informants in the winter 

of 2005. These respondents were selected because of their long history of working 

in some aspect of Forest Service recreation. Key informants shared their observations about changes in agency function and structure over time and provided 

insights about the study context that were helpful in the final design of the interview 

guide. Key informant interviews were completed by telephone or in person and 

were 90 minutes to 2 hours in length. Most, but not all, key informant interviews 

took place in the Pacific Northwest region. These interviews led to the development of an interview guide used in phase 2 of the research. These interviews were 

combined with subsequent data sets in the analytical phase. 

Phase 2—

The primary phase of data collection occurred in spring and summer 2005, when 

60 interviews were conducted with recreation managers and researchers in the 

U.S. Forest Service. Most interviews were conducted by telephone and a few were 

inperson interviews. Interviews were conducted with 40 managers in the NFS in 

every region of the country. In addition, 20 researchers in Forest Service R&D 

representing all five research stations were interviewed. 

Phase 3—

The final phase of data collection involved telephone interviews with two additional 

sample groups in summer 2006. The first group consisted of eight university-based 
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

researchers who had conducted recreation research with the Forest Service throughout the country. The second group was made up of nine social scientists in the NFS, 

who were involved in linking research and management. Most of the social scientists worked at the regional office level. 

Sample features—The sample of managers was designed to maximize regional 

diversity and ensure that recreation managers at multiple levels in the NFS were 

included (fig. 2). At the regional office level, 13 managers in each of the nine 

regions were interviewed. Each recommended one national forest in their region to 

be studied based on the criteria that the forest had an active recreation program.1

For each national forest, one forest supervisor and two recreation managers were 

identified and interviewed (n = 23). Recreation managers at the national forest 

level then recommended one ranger district with an active recreation program for 

inclusion in the study and interviews were conducted with recreation staff on the 

district level (n = 13). In addition, social scientists working for NFS at the regional 

level were interviewed (n = 9). For the researchers in the sample, scientists in each 

of the six major research stations in Forest Service R&D were interviewed based on 

their work on recreation problems2 (n = 20). In addition, university researchers with 

a history of research collaboration with the Forest Service were selected based on 

manager interviews (n = 8). 

Data Collection and Analysis

Semistructured interview guides were used in each phase of data collection. Semistructured interviews are based on an interview guide, which is a predetermined 

list of questions or topics the researcher wishes to cover (Kvale 1996, Rubin and 

Rubin 1995). Conventional interview methodology suggests that the researcher 

should adhere to an interview guide if reliable, comparable qualitative data are 

desired (Bernard 1995). Managers and researchers responded to different versions 

of the interview guide that were adapted to meet their role in the agency. 

Respondents were asked about their background, expertise, and experience, 

and to comment on the nature of their current work. The interviewer then prompted 

1By “active” recreation program we meant a forest or district where recreation activity was 

significant and there was a sizeable staff of recreation professionals, relative to other forests 

or districts in the region. Although this stipulation might serve to bias the sample in favor 

of more healthy recreation programs, the criteria was selected to eliminate problems of 

nonresponse or irrelevance associated with a random sample approach. 

2At the time of data collection, there were six research stations, including Northeast 

Research Station, North Central Research Station, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Southern Research Station, Pacific Southwest Research Station, and Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. In 2006, Northeast and North Central Station merged into the Northern 

Research Station. 
11

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

respondents to describe prominent issues in recreation that they had addressed 

through their role as researchers or managers. They were asked specifically about 

the information or knowledge they sought (or produced) to address these issues 

and the usefulness of this information; and they reflected on interactions between 

managers and scientists. Finally, respondents were prompted to comment on 

broader changes observed in the recreation management and research within the 

agency as well as the role of Forest Service R&D. Interviews generally took 1 hour 

to complete (see appendix.) 

All interviews were recorded by hand and transcribed by a graduate student. 

The research team reviewed transcripts and identified key themes and content 

areas for subsequent analysis. The team mutually developed a coding schema that 

was used to code the entire data set. Qualitative data analysis software was used 

to assign codes to the interview data and assisted in the sorting and organizing of 

codes into thematic areas (Rubin and Rubin 1995). Using the software’s sorting 

functions we discerned similarities and differences among managers and researchers in the sample. 

The research team relied on several types of quantitative data to explore 

indicators of organizational capacity, including Forest Service budgetary data for 

recreation, Forest Service budgetary data for research, personnel data for Forest 

Service recreation and research, data related to academic and training programs in 

recreation, and institutional data, such as organizational charts, memoranda, and 

internal documents. 

Figure 2—Distribution of interviewees.

Total sample

(N = 86)

Researchers

(N = 28)

USDA Forest Service National Forest System

(N = 58)

Forest 

Service R&D

(N = 20)

University

research

(N = 8)

Regional

Office

(N = 22)

National

forests

(N = 23)

Ranger

districts

(N = 13)

Recreation

staff

(N = 13)

NFS social

scientists

(N = 9)

Forest

supervisors

(N = 8)

Recreation

managers

(N = 15)
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

Forest Service Capacity for Recreation Management 

In this section, we look at how recreation has been approached and implemented 

by the U.S. Forest Service both in the management and research branches. Using 

historical and oral history data, we trace Forest Service treatment of recreation as 

a core function. Qualitative data from interviews with recreation researchers and 

managers help to illuminate current perceptions of recreation within the agency. 

Agency commitment to recreation appears to have peaked in the 1980s. Through 

most of the 1990s, recreation became subsumed under the broader framework of 

human dimensions, which was concurrent with relative declines in funding and 

personnel. Currently, agency commitment to recreation appears to be gaining 

momentum, yet existing recreation professionals find themselves pulled in multiple 

directions. 

Recreation as a Core Program Area 

Recreation has been an important aspect of forest management since the early part 

of the century. The proliferation of the automobile allowed people to visit national 

forests for leisure and outdoor adventure, resulting in the appearance of forest 

resorts, lodges, and facilities on public lands. Although the Forest Service was 

oriented to the consumptive use of forest lands for timber, grazing, and mining, a 

few visionary foresters, including Arthur Carhart, recognized the potential role of 

recreation (Forest History Society 2007). In the 1930s, the Civilian Conservation 

Corp. built much of the initial recreation infrastructure, including cabins, shelters, 

trails, docks, and lodges. These facilities catered to the proliferation in outdoor 

recreation activity in the post-war years, when Americans began spending leisure 

time in national forests and parks (Tweed 1978). Forest Service brochures distributed during this era touted the allure of “National Forest Vacations” to draw visitors 

onto public lands. 

Institutional support for recreation management began to take shape in 1957, 

when the Forest Service introduced the program, Operation Outdoors, which gave 

recreation its own line item in the budget and allowed the agency to establish a 

political justification for recreation in Congress (Clarke and McCool 1996, Douglass 

1999). The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) was 

formed in 1958 to inventory recreation facilities and to assess infrastructure needs 

(Steen 2004). In 1962, the ORRRC released the report Outdoor Recreation for 

America, which led to a federal commitment to increase recreation opportunities 

on public lands. This came shortly after the passage of the Multiple Use Sustained 

Yield Act of 1960, which recognized recreation as one of the many forest uses. The 

Outdoor Recreation Act of 1963 defined outdoor recreation as a public good and 
13

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

called for the provision of adequate recreation resources. The act also provided 

the authorization to create the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, an interagency 

organization that coordinated federal recreation programs and embarked on the 

creation of a national outdoor recreation plan (Douglass 1999). 

A series of legislative acts in the 1960s bolstered recreation participation, 

including the Land and Water Conservation Fund (1965), which funded the 

acquisition of public lands for recreation purposes, the Wilderness Act (1964), the 

National Trails System Act (1968), and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968). 

The 1970s also saw the development of national outdoor recreation plans by the 

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Recreation facilities were improved and developed by a cadre of workers in the Youth Conservation Corps and Youth-Adult 

Conservation Corps, which were formed in the mid-1970s. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation was renamed the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service 

in 1978 and shortly thereafter was dissolved, yet support for recreation resumed 

in the Reagan administration with the President’s Commission on American 

Outdoors (Douglass 1999). This commission produced the report Americans 

Outdoors (1987) that urged citizens to act to protect greenways and work with 

volunteer organizations (President’s Commission 1987). The National Recreation 

Strategy (1988) advocated a customer service focus and use of marketing strategies for recreation facilities (USDA 1992). In 1996, recreation funding received 

a boost with the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, a revenue leveraging 

action, which allowed user fees to be charged at high-use sites to support facilities maintenance (Moore and Driver 2005). 

The buildup in capacity for recreation research was concurrent with the 

expanded focus on recreation in the NFS. Recreation research units were established throughout the country to address 14 priority problem areas (Cordell 

2003). Recreation scientists were hired to explore aspects of recreation demand 

and site characteristics (Manning 1999). The publication of Outdoor Recreation 

for America prompted the development of degree programs in recreation at 

universities and the building of recreation research capacity (Camp 1983). These 

programs, many housed in colleges of forestry and natural resources, trained a 

generation of recreation professionals. Several universities, including Clemson 

and Utah State, began offering “short courses” to train agency professionals in 

recreation. These courses were staffed by Forest Service researchers and managers as well as university professors and promoted direct contact between managers and researchers. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, recreation scientists in 

Forest Service R&D were widely recognized as national leaders in the generation 

of scientific knowledge and recreation scholarship (Burdge et al. 1981). 
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

To promote exchange in recreation knowledge, the agency initiated and sponsored regional and national conferences and workshops with university partners and 

recreation professionals. In 1963, the first national recreation research conference 

was held at the University of Michigan. In 1971, the Northeast Forest Experiment 

Station sponsored a recreation research conference in Syracuse, New York. In 1973, 

a recreation applications workshop involving 80 scientists and managers was held 

in Marquette, Michigan, co-sponsored by the Northcentral Experiment Station and 

the University of Minnesota. In 1978, the Southeastern Forest Experiment Station 

sponsored a similar gathering of researchers and managers in Asheville, North 

Carolina. In 1989, Forest Service researchers began the Northwest Recreation 

Research Symposium. The Pacific Southwest Research Station began sponsoring 

the Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research in the 1990s.3 These 

organizations continue to provide a venue for managers and researchers to convene 

to discuss recreation topics. 

In the 1990s, the operating environment of the Forest Service underwent 

changes that affected the agency’s pursuit of recreation research. Many national 

forests began investing in forest planning and ecosystem planning processes, which 

required employees to synthesize and integrate biophysical and social science 

information. These planning processes drew in many recreation professionals and 

researchers who were trained to consider human dimensions and social science 

applications more broadly. Existing research capacity in recreation shifted to 

broader social science topics. Recreation researchers in the R&D division also 

began to pursue other topics such as fire, community studies, public involvement, 

and science-policy interactions in response to funding incentives and research 

gaps. Many recreation researchers in R&D began to redefine themselves as 

social scientists and consider issues across broader spatial and temporal scales. 

Accordingly, the frequency of national-level recreation meetings dwindled during 

the 1990s and 2000s and recreation researchers began attending more general 

social science conferences. In 2005, a national workshop on recreation research 

and management was held in Portland, Oregon, sponsored by the Pacific Northwest 

Research Station (Kruger et al. 2007). This represented the most recent effort to 

gather recreation professionals and scholars. 

3The northeast recreation research symposium (NERR) began in 1989 and meets annually 

in upstate New York. The meeting is supported by the Northern Research Station and several regional universities. The southeastern recreation research conference (SERR) has met 

annually since 1978. The 30th SERR meeting was held in Savannah in 2008. In 1992, the 

first symposium on social aspects and recreation research was held in Ontario, California 

sponsored by the Pacific Southwest Research Station. Three additional symposia have been 

held since then, the most recent in 2004. 
15

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

Meanwhile, recreation visits to national forests were increasing steadily and 

recreation use was changing rapidly, driven in part by improvements in technology 

and shifting consumer preferences for outdoor leisure (Moore and Driver 2005). 

Recreation visits to national forests increased from 560 million in 1980 to 860 million in 1996 (USDA Forest Service 1998). Although traditional forest activities such 

as hiking, skiing, fishing, and camping remained popular, the marketing of off-road 

vehicles and improvements in recreation gear, such as mountain bikes and global 

positioning systems, have led to rapid diversification of recreation activity. Changing population dynamics in the United States also meant that forest visitors were 

ethnically diverse and increasingly urban, suggesting new patterns of recreation use 

preferences (Manning 1999). Recreation managers found themselves dealing with 

management challenges among visitors whose activities or values were in conflict. 

Social science needs for understanding forest values among various recreation segments were significant. New recreational uses also result in biophysical effects that 

require analysis. Although these emerging recreation problems suggest the need for 

recreation-focused research, many recreation scientists in R&D had already moved 

on to broader human dimensions questions. 

As the Forest Service has shifted away from an emphasis on commodities 

production and toward ecosystem management and provision of environmental 

services, recreation remains an important agency function. In 2001, Forest Service 

Chief Dale Bosworth outlined four major threats that faced the national forest lands. 

One of these threats dealt with “unmanaged recreation” and the growing concerns 

about the biophysical and social implications of off-highway vehicles (OHV) and 

other dispersed recreation activity. In 2007, Chief Gail Kimbell also announced an 

agency commitment to fostering connections between people and forests, with particular emphasis on youth. These policy statements suggest that recreation remains 

important to agency leadership in the 21st century. 

The Forest Service increasingly relies on industry groups, such as the American Recreation Coalition, a group of recreation industry providers, to gain insights 

about recreation services. Moreover, the agency depends on partners from the 

private and nonprofit sectors to manage recreation services. As public use grows 

and existing recreation capacity is constrained, private sector partners, such as 

campground concessionaires, and volunteer organizations, such as local trail 

maintenance groups and hiking clubs, have taken on much of the responsibility 

for recreation services in many regions (Moore and Driver 2005). 
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

Capacity Trends in Forest Service Recreation 

The agency’s historical approach to recreation management can also be understood 

when examining traditional capacity measures such as funding and personnel. 

Budgetary capacity—

Funding for the USDA Forest has been in gradual decline since 2005. Throughout 

most of the 1980s, the budget for the Forest Service hovered around $3 billion, 

with half ($1.5 billion) going to the NFS (Farnham 1995). By 2007, the total budget 

for the USDA Forest Service had increased to $4.8 billion, with $1.4 billion (28 

percent) allocated to NFS. The increased emphasis on fire management has been 

the most significant change in the Forest Service budget. In 1991, the wildland fire 

program composed 13 percent of the total Forest Service budget; this proportion 

had increased to 45 percent by 2008 (USDA Forest Service 2007b). Thus, while the 

overall budget for the agency has increased steadily, the portion awarded to NFS 

land managers has declined, with immediate implications for recreation programs. 

Funding for Recreation, Wilderness and Heritage has fluctuated between 

$225 million and $310 million since the 1980s, peaking in 1993 (fig. 3). In 2007, 

the Recreation, Wilderness and Heritage program received $260 million, which 

comprised 18 percent of the budget for NFS and 5 percent of the total U.S. Forest 

Service budget. Since 1993, the recreation budget in constant dollars has declined 

Figure 3—Recreation budget for the National Forest System, 1983–2008. 
17

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

an average of 2 percent annually. Actual spending on recreation programs is 

difficult to assess accurately, as timber revenues subsidized recreation programs 

in many parts of the country. In addition, roads and facilities maintained by 

timber programs also are used by recreation visitors. With the decline in funding 

of timber management programs, a greater burden was placed on the agency to 

fund recreation projects and programs. The agency has responded by reaching out 

to partners and concessionaires to assume control of high-use sites. Reliance on 

the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program has provided $30 million in annual 

revenues for high-use sites and addressed maintenance backlogs. 

Human capacity—

The number of personnel in the Forest Service has declined fairly steadily since 

the 1990s. In 1992, the agency employed 43,427 full-time equivalent employees 

(FTEs), which fell to 36,000 FTEs by the late 1990s. By 2008, the total workforce 

was expected to be closer to 31,000—representing a loss of about 12,000 jobs in 

16 years (USDA Forest Service 2007b). In contrast, fire management gained a net of 

more than 3,000 jobs between 2002 and 2007. The number of recreation personnel 

in NFS increased from 2,400 in 1981 to a peak of 3,153 in 2002 before dropping 

back to 2,498 in 2007 (20 percent of NFS employees) (fig. 4). By 2008, another 300 

additional jobs in recreation were expected to disappear, reflecting the loss of 955 

jobs since 2002 (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

Figure 4—Recreation employment in the Forest Service.
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

Human capacity for recreation science is more difficult to assess on a national 

scale, because employment classifications for scientists differ. Some recreation 

researchers are identified as social scientists, whereas others, particularly in the 

earlier generation, are classified as foresters. Although the number of research 

social scientists, economists, and geographers employed in Forest Service R&D has 

been fairly steady since 1985, averaging about 28, the number of scientists classified 

as research foresters declined from 350 to 150 over the 27-year period. 

Manager Perceptions of Forest Service Recreation

Recreation managers and researchers interviewed for this study described 

the everyday reality of working in an agency facing budget constraints and a 

maturing workforce. Several trends were noted: Recreation managers perceived 

an increase in responsibilities over time as a result of downsizing and the resulting 

reconfiguration of positions. Managers and station researchers described a lack 

of institutional support for the recreation profession and for recreation science. 

Recreation managers were hopeful that support for recreation would increase in 

future years. 

Common background, common language—

A look at the educational background and training of recreation professionals 

revealed several important trends among recreation managers and between 

scientists and managers (table 1). The majority of recreation managers in the sample 

possessed formal education in general forestry or natural resource management (68 

percent), with over half of those holding formal degrees in recreation. In contrast, 

Forest Service researchers most commonly held advanced degrees in social sciences 

(68 percent), with a minority majoring in resource management (27 percent). Just 

11 percent of scientists in Forest Service R&D interviewed had achieved degrees 

in recreation. In contrast, all university researchers in the sample had formal 

background in natural resources management, including recreation. 

Table 1—Educational background of study respondents

Forest

Service Station University

managers researchers researchers

Academic discipline or degree (n = 58) (n = 20) (n = 8)

- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - -

Forestry or natural resources (no recreation) 30 16 43 

Forestry or natural resources (with recreation) 38 11 57

Social sciences/economics 2 68 0

Biophysical sciences 14 0 0

Public administration, planning 12 5 0

Other 4 0 0
19

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

Review of disciplinary background suggests that recreation managers have much 

in common with university researchers in terms of education, exposure to concepts 

and models, and a broad natural resource focus. Shared academic roots suggest an 

ability to communicate information and a sense of familiarity, collegiality, or comfort 

among these groups. Station scientists in the sample were trained in a variety of 

social science disciplines, (e.g., geography, social psychology), and many obtained 

degrees outside natural resource colleges. The different educational trajectories could 

suggest barriers in the communication of knowledge related to recreation management. 

Changing workforce dynamics—

Many respondents in the study were approaching eligibility for retirement, suggesting a significant turnover in workforce in the near future and a potential loss 

of institutional knowledge and professional networks. The NFS employees in the 

study sample had worked for nearly 24 years in the agency, whereas researchers 

had worked an average of 20 years. Assuming that an employee is eligible for retirement after 30 years of service, 64 percent of recreation managers and 36 percent of 

station researchers in the study could retire by 2010. Recreation specialists trained 

in the 1970s and 1980s were retiring by 2005, and some positions were not being 

replaced. As one manager stressed, “Now the difficulty is a recreation employee 

drain. Expertise will be leaving in large numbers and the agency doesn’t have a 

strategy to replace those experts.” 

The declining workforce has meant added responsibility for the workers who 

remain. In some cases, this has affected employee morale. As one manager explained, 

There is no new blood in the personnel. Attrition is how we are dealing with 

the budget crisis. We may lay off people next. We have 13 recreation positions that are not filled. Our ability to retain is bad, morale is low, and people 

go to the private sector. 

The loss of recreation specialists with years of agency experience and formal 

recreation training represents a loss in institutional capacity. The question remains 

about how the agency will seek to build recreation capacity amidst these transitions. 

Short courses have been useful in retraining agency personnel, and the Forest Service 

is exploring new training models to upgrade skills in the recreation workforce. 

Recreation managers also reported that their responsibilities had expanded 

laterally. With downsizing and retirement of staff in core functions, remaining staff 

took on additional responsibilities and job titles. One researcher called these “comma 

jobs,” referring to the list of functions attached to one’s official title or job description. Put simply, “People are wearing more hats.” Another manager explained, 

The loss of recreation 

specialists with years 

of agency experience 

and formal recreation 

training represents a 

loss in institutional 

capacity. The 

question remains 

about how the 

agency will seek 

to build recreation 

capacity amidst these 

transitions. 
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

In the 1980s, the person in [my] position would have focused almost 

exclusively on recreation. In the 1990s, downsizing combined positions of 

engineering, lands, and recreation in 14 forests in Region [X]. Five out of 

six forests have the same arrangement. 

At the ranger district level, recreation specialists typically had responsibility 

for an array of functions, including dispersed recreation, developed recreation, 

wilderness, trails, special use permits, and interpretation. They supervised 

temporary maintenance staff and trail crews and managed concessionaires and 

partnership contracts. Recreation staff at the district level also might serve as 

a community liaison and were periodically asked to lead Interdisciplinary (ID) 

teams as part of National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) or forest planning 

processes. One subject described herself as the “ORA,” or the “Other Resource 

Assistant” who handled “resources that nobody else wanted.” Meanwhile, at the 

forest supervisor’s office, recreation staff had responsibility for many disparate 

areas, including public services, wilderness, heritage, lands, minerals, engineering, 

tribal relations, and interpretation. A recreation manager at the forest level 

explained, 

I came here to this office in an air quality specialist position, but it was 

immediately downsized and I moved here to this [recreation] position. 

This position has gotten broader and broader as other people leave and 

downsizing occurs. When I first started here, we had two people just doing 

wilderness. This reduction has occurred across the forests. We’re just in 

custodial/janitorial modes right now, because we don’t have active programs on the ground. 

As job descriptions expanded to encompass more functional areas, many 

managers felt they were losing touch with “on the ground” issues. One manager at 

the supervisor’s office explained that as budgets declined, they sought to preserve 

staff at the district level to encourage public contact; the staff at the supervisor’s 

office was “bare bones.” As one manager explained, “Budget and personnel are 

on the decrease relative to the workload. We rely on volunteers and collaborators.” 

Recreation partners have become an essential way of doing business for many 

Forest Service programs. 

Perceptions of recreation as the “second fiddle”—

Recreation managers frequently indicated their belief that recreation had never 

been a high priority for the Forest Service. Managers often used words like “second 

fiddle,” “ugly stepchild,” and “side program” when describing the viewpoints of 
21

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

agency administrators toward recreation. As one respondent explained, “Recreation 

has always been the same. I’ve been optimistic that it would be the number one 

white hat. We have come close a few times. We get no respect.” The notion that 

recreation was something that agency leadership tolerated, but did not encourage 

was echoed throughout the study. “Recreation is viewed as a necessary evil. We 

recognize it and say it is important, but there is not funding. It does not rise to a 

high level of priority.” Another manager reiterated, 

I hate to say this, but [recreation] has not changed at all. When I first came 

to the Forest Service, my supervisor said when I was hired that “we’re 

getting serious about recreation.” Here I am at the end of my career and 

we’re wrestling with the same issues. We’ve never been serious about it.... 

Recreation has been accepted, tolerated, but not aggressively or proactively 

managed. 

Accordingly, there was a shared perception that recreation personnel were not 

highly valued. In the words of one manager, “Internally, [recreation] is not thought 

of highly; people think “all the duds are in recreation.” Managers who had studied 

recreation in college often had been told by professors to combine recreation with 

forestry or other disciplines if they wanted to get a job, “you couldn’t get anywhere 

unless you were a forester or an engineer.” The lack of a professional series in 

recreation until 2006 limited the career paths for recreation staff. Many recreation 

professionals moved into other functional areas as a means to advance. 

Reasons offered to explain agency attitudes toward recreation were numerous 

and varied. Some detected a natural resource bias in the agency, causing land managers to disregard recreation. As one manager explained, “Recreation is viewed as 

a problem. [People say] ‘If it wasn’t for those recreationists, we would be able to cut 

trees and not worry about wilderness.’” Some referred to the inherent philosophy of 

the Forest Service. “The Forest Service institutionally is utilitarian. Recreation is 

hard for foresters, given the traditional mindset of the Forest Service of using wood, 

water, and fiber. Resource extraction is the mindset.” Others suggested that the 

lack of support was linked to the absence of lobbyists and big business advocates 

for recreation. The notion that recreation is a low priority for the Forest Service 

has implications for the agency’s commitment to building recreation expertise and 

knowledge. The widespread perception of institutional ambivalence toward recreation may reflect a broader confusion about the agency’s core mission. 
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

Four threats boost the status of recreation—

Meanwhile another group of respondents contested this perception that recreation 

suffers from declining support, by pointing to the agency’s “Four Threats” and the 

accompanying attention to OHV use on public lands. Moreover, media focus on 

issues and challenges resulting from growing recreation use on public lands and the 

eruption of resource conflicts have kept recreation on the radar screen. Recreation 

remains salient for the general public, and the agency is being forced to deal with 

challenges they can no longer ignore. 

The administration’s focus on unmanaged recreation as one of the “Four 

Threats” facing national forest lands has encouraged a current focus on travel management planning. As one manager exclaimed, “Funding is up and recreation has 

stature. ... We are at the table now.” Another stated, “It has changed. [Recreation 

has gone] from a second child to one of the leading emphasis programs.” Another 

manager noted an increase in leadership focused on recreation, 

Fairly recently, recreation is getting more attention in the region. They recognized the demand potential from the standpoint of healthy recreation and 

tourism industry. But we have not been able to put resources and funding 

organizationally to bear on moving programs. 

Although managers were encouraged by the emphasis in recreation, they were 

still hoping for an increase in funding to match the focus of Forest Service leadership. As a manager explained, “There is increasing rhetoric about the importance 

of recreation for the focus of the Forest Service, but this is not backed up by the 

budget. “Another stated, “We are not walking the talk. The Four Threats are not 

reflected in the budget.” Finally, in reference to promises of support for recreation 

at his region, one recreation manager said simply, “Words come cheap. The funding 

and the words don’t match.” 

Despite mixed responses about the overall perception of support for recreation 

in the agency, respondents widely agreed about the growing significance of recreation and its role in making a connection with the American public. As one manager explained, “Recreation is our major connection with the public. Recreation is 

the portal that they view the agency from. If the Forest Service wants advocates [in 

the public] they will come through recreation.” The agency’s support of programs 

to improve human connections with the natural world, such as Chief Gail Kimbell’s 

“Kids in the Woods” program, will likely be approached to some extent through 

recreation programs. 
23

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

Recreation Issues and Challenges

Types of recreation issues—

Recreation managers in the Forest Service and other public agencies face a wide 

variety of issues and problems that they must address (Nelson 2006). Managers 

were asked, “What have emerged as the most significant recreation management 

issues that you have faced over the course of your career?” (fig. 5). Some issues 

raised in the interviews reflect concerns identified by recreation visitors and 

stakeholders. Others, such as motorized vehicle use and recreation realignment, 

reflect national agency priorities. Results show that recreation managers face 

greater pressure to understand trends among recreation visitors to improve 

planning processes. The top seven most common themes are discussed below. 

Many of these issues overlap. 

Figure 5—Recreation management issue types–percentage of total responses (n = 49).
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

Motorized recreation—The issue on the surface of nearly two-thirds of recreation 

managers in the sample dealt with the need to manage motorized recreation and 

OHV use. As one manager explained, “The off-highway vehicle issue is emerging. 

In the past 5 to 7 years, it has exploded.” Expansion of motorized vehicle use on 

public lands as well as the associated planning efforts to regulate that use has 

created challenges for recreation managers. Off-highway vehicles and other forms 

of motorized recreation were identified as a primary threat to the national forests 

by former Forest Service Chief Bosworth. The 2005 Travel Management Rule 

requested that all management units engage in travel and access management 

planning, including comprehensive environmental analysis. Many managers 

were in the process of drafting motorized vehicle plans, which require significant 

information needs related to recreation use. 

Aligning recreation services with demand—The Forest Service is urging forest 

units to review recreation assets to prioritize and determine services to offer their 

publics, in an effort called the Recreation Facilities Review.4 This task requires 

understanding the changes in use dynamics among stakeholders and users and 

identifying primary uses that match with existing settings. Managers are assessing 

supply of existing facilities and services and matching with changing client needs. 

(We are) currently practicing this idea of niche management. It’s a new 

philosophy, where each forest tries to identify its niche. The idea is that not 

every forest can be everything to everybody. (This forest) is being noted 

for its [geologic features], rivers, waterfalls, lakes, and horse riding. We are 

trying to develop facilities to accommodate that. The idea is that you focus 

on a niche and don’t target others. 

Biophysical effects of outdoor recreation—Managers expressed rising concern 

about the effects of various forms of recreation, particularly motorized use, on native habitat, forest ecosystems, and endangered species. As one manager asked, 

“How many people can we provide quality recreation experiences without degrading the resource in a variety of settings?” A special concern was raised related to 

wildlife effects of recreation use and effects on rare plants and alpine ecosystems. 

Resource conflicts and noncompatible use—The diversity of recreation uses and 

changes in recreation technology have led to an increasing frequency and intensity 

of conflicts between various types of visitors, such as various types of motorized 

4 This process was previously named the Recreation Site Facility Master Planning process. 

The name was changed in 2007.
25

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

users (e.g., motorcycles, four-wheel drive vehicles), equestrian groups, nonmotorized forms of use, mountain bike groups, climbers, and others. Managers seek ways 

of managing use conflicts at various scales of analysis. 

Meeting visitor demand—In some forests, particularly those adjacent to urban 

metropolitan areas, recreation use has increased, putting pressure on existing 

facilities and resources. Changing patterns of recreation use reflect shifts in 

values, consumer trends, and patterns of work and leisure. Changing recreation 

technologies and marketing from the outdoor recreation industry have helped to 

fuel increased visitor demand for public lands. Managers must respond quickly 

to these changing patterns to mitigate potential conflicts. 

Changing demographics and urbanization—Managers often talked about the 

growing diversity of recreation visitors and the resulting shift in predominant uses, 

particularly in forests close to urban areas. As demographics change, new visitors 

are appearing in national forests seeking different experiences and desiring new 

types of services and settings. 

Funding for recreation programs—Recreation managers frequently mentioned 

that their greatest challenge was the lack of available funds to maintain existing 

facilities and programs. Budget cuts had diminished capacity to plan and manage 

recreation. Many core functions, such as campground management, were outsourced to the private sector. Recreation managers increasingly were responsible 

for managing contracts, developing partnerships with volunteer organizations, and 

managing special use (outfitter-guide) permits as part of their duties. Recreation Fee 

Demonstration Programs were helping to offset management costs in high-use sites, 

which had helped to alleviate backlog in maintenance. Little funding was available 

for recreation management in dispersed sites, which is where much off-road use 

takes place. 

Agency capacity to identify recreation issues—

Nearly one-fourth of managers in the study indicated that they had adequate 

capacity to identify issues. Managers and researchers pointed to several factors 

affecting managers’ ability to identify recreation issues. 

Time and budget constraints—Recreation managers faced challenges in their 

ability to define issues, owing to time constraints. One scientist noted that in 

years past, managers would contact researchers to discuss problems and get to 

the heart of a particular issue. “Now, they don’t have time to pick up the phone.” 

Several managers commented issues came to their attention based on input 
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

from stakeholders, user groups, permit holders, and volunteers, because current 

recreation staff was not able to visit the forest themselves. As one researcher 

commented, 

Scientists agree that the barrier is the crunch that managers face. They 

don’t have time to fully look into and define an issue or ask the right questions. We don’t have time to properly do research to answer the question. 

Reduction in formally-trained personnel—Both managers and researchers noted 

that downsizing and reassignment had reduced the skill base of remaining recreation staff. Recreation professionals with formal training had retired or moved into 

other positions. With so many forest service personnel being retrained from other 

areas, today’s recreation manager may be less prepared for intensive community 

interactions that are required during the process of issue identification. 

Skill bases are so low that even if you throw money (at a problem) 

for a short time, there are no people to do the work. We have reached 

‘below critical mass.’ We are almost at critical mass of even having the 

infrastructure to work with volunteers. 

In addition, staff members recently reassigned to recreation may hold different 

expectations related to the role of science in decisionmaking. 

It’s not just money; there’s no staff with the right skills. They do not have 

people with social science backgrounds and they don’t have a culture that 

really turns to data and research as the first tool of choice to make decisions. Culturally, they just made decisions through anecdotal experience.... 

Reduced opportunities for planning—Recreation planning helps to allocate resources among various types of recreation use and encourages managers to think 

proactively about a particular landscape or site. The decline in funds allocated 

toward recreation planning and the dearth of formally trained recreation personnel 

has encouraged more reactive decisionmaking. 

Decline in collaboration—Researchers perceived that opportunities for interaction 

with managers in issue identification and problem framing have declined in recent 

years. Many suggested that these declines reflected administrative pressures and 

budget constraints. Yet, with the decline in opportunity to mutually define issues, 

the gap between researchers and managers has widened. 
27

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

Future Questions

1. Recreation managers at all levels of the agency appear to be assuming 

many responsibilities in addition to recreation planning and management. Consequently, more recreation functions are being handled by 

volunteers, paid concessionaires, and contracting partners. What are 

the implications of sharing the workload with external organizations? 

2. Do perceptions of recreation as a lower priority function of the agency 

persist in the workforce? What is needed to improve the perceived 

status of recreation among all employees and external partners? 

3. Many employees have been assigned to recreation positions without 

extensive formal training in recreation. University short courses have 

provided the workforce with skills and tools in recreation management. What ongoing training needs do these recreation managers 

have? Is the agency prepared to provide continuing education to 

develop the skill set needed to address contentious recreation issues? 

4. Changing recreation trends have altered patterns of use and resulted 

in user conflicts among diverse groups. Capacity constraints have 

impacted the ability of some recreation managers to identify and 

frame recreation issues. How might the agency tap into existing 

capacity, such as recreation partners and researchers, in the process 

of issue identification? 

Agency Capacity for Science Exchange and Interaction 

Natural resource managers in the Forest Service often seek scientific information to 

aid them in planning and decisionmaking. The agency has both internal sources for 

science production in the R&D division as well as external professional networks 

in the research community. In this section, we explore the process of identifying 

and communicating information needs as well as the application of information to 

management decisions. We also describe expectations, opportunities, and barriers for interactions between managers and researchers, and how these have been 

affected by overall changes in organizational capacity. 

Exchanging Science Information for Recreation Management 

The objectives of federal research programs can only be truly achieved if scientific 

knowledge and applications are transferred to managers (Wright 2007). Knowledge, 

information, and tools are developed by scientists to address resource management 
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

problems. Managers require access to sources of knowledge and the capability 

to interpret and apply relevant findings to their situation. Several barriers to 

information have been identified in previous studies, including lack of awareness 

of available information, lack of access to knowledge sources, cultural differences 

between research and management, limited incentives to incorporate science 

and technology, and lack of time or resources to engage in information exchange 

(Hollstedt and Swift 2000, Wright 2007). This section explores how managers 

identify information needs and sources and their ability to access and apply 

scientific information to address everyday recreation problems. 

Information needs of recreation managers—

Managers mentioned several areas where access to information or research was 

desired to address a particular set of recreation management challenges or issues. 

Specific needs for scientific information are noted (fig. 6). Not surprisingly, 

information needs correlated with recreation issues. Four information needs 

were especially germane to managers in the study. 

Figure 6—Information needs of recreation managers (n = 36). Note: There were 49 recreation managers in 

the sample.

Motorized recreation—Managers desired more specific information about dispersed recreation, including OHV use, including characteristics, behaviors, numbers, and site preferences among dispersed recreation visitors. Recreation managers 

sought information on the biophysical, social, and economic effects of OHV use 

and other forms of dispersed recreation. Specifically, they requested tools to help 

manage OHV use in concert with other forest activities. 
29

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

Visitor preferences and use trends—Recreation managers desired tools that would 

help them understand values, preferences, and behaviors of user groups visiting 

public lands. Managers wanted to understand what settings certain user groups prefer, what they seek to do when they arrive in national forests, and what shapes their 

actions and decisions once they come. They also sought strategies and tools to assist 

in modifying or altering visitor behavior to mitigate biophysical impacts, improve 

visitor flow, or ease tension from conflicting visitor uses. 

Recreation customers—Managers expressed an immediate need for information 

related to demographics and visitor use trends so that they could better understand 

who the forest visitors are and what they are doing when they visit national forests. 

Managers especially sought information that was specific to their national forest 

or region. Several mentioned using data from the National Visitor Use Monitoring 

(NVUM) program to understand visitor demographics. 

Spatial tools for recreation planning—Managers required information about 

how visitors interact with particular sites. Previous tools developed by Forest 

Service scientists to plan recreation opportunities across a planning area need 

to be modified and updated to address changing conditions. By understanding 

recreation values and activities among user groups, managers hoped to predict 

social impacts of forest management policies and decisions. 

Other information needs mentioned include tools for establishing wilderness 

carrying capacity, a greater understanding of the interaction between recreation and 

the biophysical environment, tools and models for decisionmaking and managing 

stakeholder conflict, and research related to managing dispersed recreation use. 

There was widespread consensus about the need for site-specific data and analytical 

tools that would help recreation managers make on-the-ground decisions. Several 

mentioned the need for data that would assist in forest planning, as well as more 

targeted recreation planning efforts. 

Managers identified three specific barriers related to identifying 

information needs. 

• Lack of time to define information needs. Recreation managers perceived 

a shortage of time and resources to adequately identify and convey 

their information needs or to learn about potential information sources. 

They indicated that they often were too busy or overwhelmed to contact 

scientists. 
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

• Process for conveying information needs. Managers often were unaware 

of how to convey information needs within NFS or to Forest Service R&D. 

As one manager explained, “Occasionally information needs come up. We 

don’t necessarily know what level decisions are made on information. We 

are not asked what our information gaps are. [We] can forward things up, 

but where does that go?” Managers also commented on the need for a direct 

channel between NFS and Forest Service R&D; many were unaware of formal channels that linked their management unit to a research station. 

• Conveying information needs in a scientific framework. Managers and 

researchers both noted that recreation managers without formal recreation training face difficulties articulating needs in a scientific framework. 

Researchers note that issues identified by managers often do not translate 

into research problems. As one researcher explained, “Managers frame 

questions in ways that are generally not researchable ....Too often managers 

are confronted by controversy and are seeking the silver bullet.” 

Information sources—

Managers were asked where they sought out information or what agency/individual 

they consulted when in search of information useful for resolving recreation problems. Most managers who responded sought information from a variety of sources 

at different phases of a given project (fig. 7). They also indicated a preference for 

information sources that could provide data that were iterative and responsive to 

particular questions important for planning and NEPA analysis. In some cases, 

empirical research was not needed, but rather synthesized information, databases, 

and cases were most useful in actual management settings. Depending on the 

nature of the problem being addressed, managers may seek either applied or basic 

science resources in search of scientific information. 

Managers seek information from multiple sources and for different reasons—

Managers in the sample generally appeared resourceful, relying on a variety of 

information sources to address aspects of recreation problems: One manager explained his/her approach. 

[We’ll] look into a number of places. Internally, [we’ll] look for stuff that is 

specific to an area or a specific district or forest. A problem one place may 

be similar to one in another area. [We] look for local examples, history, 

and patterns. [We] also ask other folks around the forest ... documented 

historical records; oral history is a big piece. Retired [Forest Service] folks 

can help; we call them to get history. Outside the Forest Service, we talk to 

conservation organizations, other landowners, state parks, people that work 
31

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

for cooperators. [We’ll ask them,] ‘Have you seen similar things? What 

works and what doesn’t.’ Local (information) is the first choice. From there, 

we can go to the Internet and search wilderness.net ... or leavenotrace.

org. We’ll see what kind of research has been done and what things people 

are employing in similar or dissimilar environments. The other thing, is 

publications from the agency or independent sources. 

Forest Service R&D was mentioned as a common source of knowledge and 

information related to long-term studies or decisionmaking tools and applications, 

such as the ROS or place-based planning. Others mentioned research stations as a 

source of information about biophysical effects of recreation use. Station scientists 

were mentioned as a source for empirical research, long-term studies, and conceptual frameworks. 

Universities also were mentioned as a source of empirical research, including 

both basic and applied studies. Managers often commented that university researchers offered professional objectivity and expertise that lends credibility to study 

results. Many also noted that university researchers were flexible and responsive 

to manager needs and time constraints. 

Stakeholders and user groups were sought as sources of local knowledge, particularly when addressing issues in a nearby forest or district. Managers appeared to 

rely heavily on input from local groups with extensive knowledge about a particular 

issue or a particular place. This local knowledge was incorporated both in the 

problem identification phase and in the process of weighing alternatives. 

Figure 7—Information sources consulted (n = 36). Note: There were 49 recreation managers in 

the sample.
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

Managers turned to nongovernmental organizations and task forces, such as 

blue ribbon panels (panels of experts appointed by government officials), and interagency working groups, particularly when they needed information about a new 

issue which had not been deeply studied by researchers. Several managers mentioned needing information about OHV management as part of travel management 

planning. Rather than fund empirical studies on OHV use, they were more likely to 

rely on information supplied by panels of experts to respond to immediate needs. 

Internal sources in the NFS often were consulted as a source of experiential 

knowledge or “anecdotal” information. As one manager explained, “You call 

individuals and say: ‘Have you dealt with this one?’ Colleagues have seen it and 

done it; (solutions) are tried and tested.” Other types of information and sources 

are shown below:

Type of information Sources

Decisionmaking models, recreation Forest Service Research and Developplanning tools, applications ment (R&D) and universities

Basic science, literature, Forest Service R&D and universities

conceptual frameworks

Applied research (issue or Universities, consultants, private firms, 

site-specific) nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),

 and enterprise teams,

Information about emerging issues Blue-ribbon panels, tasks forces, and NGOs

Site-specific information, maps, Stakeholder and user groups, NGOs, 

use patterns, local knowledge universities, and internal National 

Forest System (NFS) sources

Experiential cases NFS (internal) sources, blue ribbon panels, 

and Internet sources

Demographic, socioeconomic data Forest Service databases, states, counties,

and private consulting firms

Several managers mentioned the need for site-specific demographic, socioeconomic information for planning processes, such as “recreation niche” planning. 

They typically sought demographic and socioeconomic information from state and 

county sources or private consulting firms, such as market researchers, consumer 

research firms, real estate research entities, and others engaged in collection or 

management of socioeconomic databases. 

Managers also required information about visitor backgrounds, values, and 

preferences to assess their recreation niche and for other planning purposes. They 

most often hired private consulting firms, university researchers, or enterprise 
33

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

teams to assess local patterns of visitor motivations, expectations, and activities 

at specific sites and regions. The NVUM program (Washington office) and the 

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) surveys (Southern 

Research Station) were mentioned by many managers as sources of visitor information; however, several commented that these data were not helpful in addressing 

problems at finer scales. 

Managers need information in an iterative fashion—Several managers explained 

that they required different types of information at different stages of the project. 

The standard process of problem identification, environmental analysis, and 

decisionmaking appeared to be compatible with iterative search for information. 

Empirical research, which often requires greater lead time, may not easily fit into 

the decisionmaking cycle. 

I’m not necessarily seeking research information, not statistically valid 

research. Sometimes we do, but (that is) not our first source. If you take the 

Recreation Fee issue, I was in the Northwest at the time. It was a matter of 

learning the legislation ... a new concept. There was internal discussion and 

brainstorming. We talked with interest groups and constituents and launched 

into an experimental program. We got anecdotal public reaction.... After 

a year or two, we revamped the program and made some tweaks. We did 

telephone survey research of the general population.... We met with focus 

groups and did on-site interviews. The first attempt had the ... research 

station involved. Then we went on to do more research. 

Managers also indicated a need for information that was timely and relevant. 

As one manager explained, “That’s why we went to universities, we wanted applied 

research that met our needs. One of the problems with internal Station folks; they 

could not produce in a timely fashion. [Once, I] waited five or six years and never 

got a report.” 

Capacity constraints shape decisions about information sources—Choices 

about where to go for information also were influenced by funding and time 

constraints. Several managers mentioned that they did not have time to work with 

the research station scientists, nor did they have time to wait for results. As one 

manager explained, “We do have a need for information, but we don’t have time to 

research the problem. We don’t have time to read stuff.” A few mentioned that they 

had no resources to employ station scientists or university researchers to conduct 

a study. The availability and responsiveness of information sources also affected 
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

decisions about where to seek information. As these managers explained, the lack 

of awareness of formal links between their management unit and the research 

station shaped their decisions. 

Generally, we do not go to the [named] station. We go to the academy 

before we would go to a research station. Usually there is some interest 

or not in the research station, but I have not had success in getting them 

to respond to a request, even for basic information like what studies have 

been done in an area. There is simply no relationship between the [named] 

station and the regional office. 

[I] get information from user communities, from science, and from internal 

land managers that may have experience on similar issues.... [I] began 

sending out emails and making phone calls, trying to pick up information 

through [discussions with others on] monitoring and comments. We don’t 

have clear channels to research. 

For some managers, research did not come into the equation at all when 

addressing recreation issues or problems. Instead, they used information at hand, 

consulted internal sources and local groups, and made professional judgments 

based on collective wisdom or agency precedents in similar cases. As one manager 

explained, “In the end, decisions are made on perceptions rather than fact. Our 

limitations to making good decisions are not due to a lack of good scientific data.” 

Communicating Scientific Knowledge and Information

Recreation managers and researchers were asked to discuss effective ways of 

communicating recreation knowledge and information that would be most helpful to them. Two interview questions attempted to address this question about the 

mechanisms used to convey scientific information: What is the best way for you to 

access information? What is the best way to communicate findings to managers? A 

total of 26 managers and 18 researchers responded, and they identified a variety of 

mechanisms for information conveyance (fig. 8). Most respondents noted more than 

one strategy for sharing information often was necessary. 

Web or Internet sources—

Nearly every respondent mentioned the use of the Web as an effective way to convey information. Many mentioned the use of search engines, issue-specific information sources, databases, and online indexes. Researchers interviewed also felt 

that managers appreciated information that was accessible online, including data 

summary tables, statistical tables, and presentations. Recreation managers often 
35

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

felt frustrated about not knowing what scientists were working on or how to find 

them. Several suggested developing a Web-link to existing research where topics 

are organized and synthesized, with links to individual scientists. They sought a 

central clearinghouse of recreation information indexed by subject and scientist. 

This type of system would ease the burden of information-seeking considerably for 

managers. “You need a simple, easy-to-navigate place that has a nice index of stuff. 

.... Why not a permanent link to research? One-stop shop. Researchers need to do 

a stronger marketing of what is available.” 

Some web-based resources have been recently developed, such as the Human 

Dimensions Web site (http://www.hd.gov), which is a clearinghouse for natural 

resource managers to access information relevant to human dimensions. Launched 

in 2007, this site provides access to issues, tools, cases, publications and policies 

relevant to a variety of topics dealing with human/natural resource interactions. 

Recreation researchers may need to find ways to better link their work through 

this site. 

Technical bulletins and reports—Managers enjoyed reading newsletters and 

brief summaries with links to more detailed reports or studies. One manager 

commented, “Anything quick and easy is good.” Researchers shared the perception 

that managers prefer short technical reports with research highlights. Although 

Figure 8— Preferred means of information conveyance (n = 26 managers, 18 researchers). 

Note: There were 49 recreation managers in the sample.
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

these formats are widely recognized as being useful, several station scientists 

noted that administrative pressures, publishing expectations, and the Office of 

Management and Budget survey requirements made it difficult to find the time to 

engage in technology transfer. They do not receive credit in their promotions for 

producing short research summaries that communicate with lay audiences. 

Workshops and symposia—Managers enjoyed the opportunity to interact personally with researchers and learn about new approaches in context of workshops, conferences, and issue-specific symposia. Several noted that capacity constraints (e.g., 

budgets) had inhibited these interactions. 

Training, briefing (onsite)—Managers also appreciated direct information transfer 

opportunities, such as trainings, short courses, and brown-bag presentations that 

occur onsite. Researchers also agreed that one-on-one interaction was an effective 

means of information exchange. 

Scientific journals—Managers felt that scientific journals represented an important means of communicating scientific information, but many mentioned their lack 

of time to read journal articles. Refereed journals and general technical reports 

remained the primary means researchers used to communicate scientific findings. 

Researchers also acknowledged that few managers had time to read the articles 

they published. 

Knowledge synthesis—Several managers indicated their preference for products 

that synthesize information from a variety of sources related to a particular topic 

or issue. Some mentioned previous research units that provided library searches, 

conducted literature reviews, or assembled reading lists. Capacity constraints had 

reduced the agency’s ability to provide these services through the research stations, 

although they were appreciated by managers. 

The lack of time and capacity to access research and scientific information was 

noted by many managers. Several urged researchers to reconsider the best ways to 

share relevant findings, urging use of a variety of strategies. 

We should encourage innovative ways [for Research] to disseminate 

information to on-the-ground managers in timely and constructive ways. 

A lot of information is not getting used. There should be some vehicle that 

would put findings in the right hands, so it gets used. People lack the time 

and ability to put their hands on information. 
37

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

Integrating science in resource management—

Managers were asked whether they could identify any specific recreation studies, 

tools, or models they found particularly useful in planning and decisionmaking. 

Although the question was open-ended, respondents tended to focus on products 

associated with Forest Service R&D, possibly because other questions specifically 

probed about interactions with the research stations. These findings should be 

considered tentative and exploratory owing to the low response rate (fig. 9). 

Figure 9— Research products used by managers (n = 20). Note: There were 49 recreation managers and 20 researchers in 

the sample.

Interestingly, very few specific studies or reports were identified in response 

to this query, although several were mentioned as being noteworthy or useful in 

other segments of the interview. In addition to survey data sources, such as NVUM 

and NSRE, managers gravitated to management tools, planning models, and other 

applications produced by researchers when noting what had been most useful. In 

addition, many of the tools mentioned were developed in the 1970s and 1980s, 

including ROS and Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC). Several managers suggested that these applications were still relevant, but required updating to match 

current conditions. Although some of these tools, such as LAC, have been updated, 

managers may not be aware of efforts among researchers to make them relevant for 

current recreation problems (see McCool and Cole 1997, McCool et al. 2007). One 

manager’s response echoed the sentiments of others. 
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

We need something that says, “do this first, and then do that.” [Forest Service] research is not developed enough at the field level to give us that tool 

that we need. We have what was developed in the 1980s and that’s it. The 

stuff in the 1960s and 1970s was impressive, but recreation management 

has stalled out. The skills to do an area wide analysis and implement a plan 

have deteriorated. The money is gone. There was a push in the early 1990s, 

but we are still implementing plans from 1991, we are just getting the 

money to do those. .... Recreation doesn’t have good analytical processes 

for managing the resource. 

These exploratory findings suggest that managers perceive the need for new 

applications to manage complex recreation challenges. Existing applications 

have proven useful but may require updating to adapt to changes in the operating 

environment. Although research studies may inform managers, research applications, technologies, and models for planning and decisionmaking are most desired. 

Additional research is needed to further substantiate these findings. 

We also were interested in understanding the role of recreation research in 

everyday management situations. Specifically, they were asked, “How important 

or relevant is research information to recreation management decisions?” The 

35 managers who responded to this query described a variety of ways in which 

research and scientific information may be used in everyday management 

situations. These include: 

• The incorporation of quantitative data into planning models.

• The creation of tools for recreation planning and inventory. 

• Synthesis of related studies to address a management problem.

• Empirical research within a particular management unit. 

Scientific information also was viewed as important for defending against 

public challenges, such as lawsuits or appeals. 

Although 74 percent of managers interviewed indicated that scientific research 

held some value for managers, 40 percent suggested that research and scientific 

information played a role in management decisions on a daily basis. Managers 

believed that decisions based in science were preferred, but, as one manager 

explained, “Research is one of many things that go into decisionmaking.” Other 

factors include professional judgments, hunches or “gut” reactions, political factors, 

stakeholder or citizen values, input from partners and Forest Service colleagues, 

and budgetary considerations. 
39

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

Research as a foundation for understanding—Rather than being something 

directly incorporated into recreation planning and decisionmaking, research is 

viewed by many managers as a foundation for knowledge and understanding. 

As one manager explained, “On a day-to-day basis, when we are working 

on immediate issues, we don’t have research. In the longer term it becomes 

important. Research provides a basis of knowledge to work with. It helps you 

learn as a manager and make better decisions.” 

Although some mangers felt that all decisions should have a basis in scientific 

knowledge, others indicated that scientific information was most relevant as 

background–helping managers to understand or appreciate a facet of the recreation experience. For example, one manager indicated that research related to user 

preferences of OHV riders helped him to understand the context for developing a 

travel management plan. 

Validity and availability of social science data—Managers explained that they 

thought scientific information should be relied on more strongly as the basis for 

decisions, but in the case of recreation, this simply was not commonplace. There 

were several reasons for this. Some managers said that social science findings 

were difficult to quantify and defend. One manager explained that scientific 

information plays a far greater role in biological and physical sciences. 

Our specialists are using research to address resource issues, like fish and 

wildlife issues. We have to use the best science. Detractors try to dig up 

other science. But, this is not occurring in the social sciences. Recreation 

managers struggle to find the same quality of science to help them. 

Others said that lack of research in a particular area hampered their decisionmaking. Another barrier mentioned was that recreation researchers were unwilling to publish studies based on data that were not statistically sound or was 

otherwise unreliable. Yet, managers argued that having some data, however 

flawed, was better than no data at all. As one manager stated, “Numbers that are 

statistically valid on the Forest level may not be statistically valid at the watershed 

level. It’s not good enough for researchers.” Still, these data were the only ones 

available for this particular manager, so they were incorporated. 

Substantiating professional judgments—Research was also valued for its ability 

to lend support to the gut feelings of managers who most often relied on professional judgment to make everyday decisions. As one manager explained, 
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

On the social end, decisions are not made based on research. [We are dealing with] conflicts and users and people’s perceptions of how we manage 

the system. We go mostly by anecdotal [information] and personal experience or one-on-one contact. When making social choices, [you rely on] 

intuitive balancing, not on research. 

Capacity constraints—Several managers explained that they simply lacked the 

time and the financial resources to adequately incorporate existing scientific information into the decisionmaking process. They knew the research was out there, but 

had no time to integrate it to the decisionmaking process. As a result, managers relied more on judgments, experiential knowledge, and professional anecdotes shared 

by agency colleagues rather than the synthesis or integration of existing research. 

As one manager explained, 

Managers use professional judgment to make decisions about the data they 

are looking at. It’s harder for researchers to build a model based on professional judgment. Managers make assumptions; they think about rough 

proportions of use and they make some judgment calls. 

These exploratory findings suggest the need for additional empirical research 

using quantitative methods to explore the various factors that managers weigh in 

decisionmaking, and how scientific research relates to these other factors. 

Capacity constraints in science integration—

Once they have obtained information relevant to their recreation problem or issue, 

managers must figure out how to interpret and apply that information to their 

decisionmaking process. Recreation managers in the study talked about several 

challenges or constraints that made the application of scientific findings difficult. 

Lack of formal training in recreation—Managers and researchers observed that 

some recreation specialists lacked indepth knowledge of the recreation field. Some 

have been retrained from other functional areas, such as timber or engineering. 

Although they may have basic knowledge of recreation principles, they have spent 

less time exposed to recreation theories, tools, methodologies, concepts, and frameworks. Because of this gap, it is difficult for managers to know how to make sense 

of research findings, particularly when study findings conflict or when studies were 

conducted in settings with different physical or social conditions. 

Information overload—The abundance of information from multiple sources 

available on the Internet and other avenues is resulting in information overload. 

It appears to be difficult for recreation managers to determine the credibility of 
41

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

various studies, particularly if they lack formal training in recreation disciplines. 

Recreation managers also stated that they have difficulty keeping up with the latest 

journals. As one researcher pointed out, “There is so much out there that it becomes 

a question of how to provide information in a way so that it doesn’t become noise.” 

Relevance of information—Many recreation managers commented that they preferred applied research that addressed on-the-ground issues and offered solutions, 

rather than theoretical information. As one manager explained, “I need answers to 

the problems that are on my desk.” Another researcher pointed out that managers 

need data and information to apply to models or plans. Meanwhile, researchers produce findings and implications that require interpretation. In his words, “Managers 

need information ...data. Researchers publish findings.” 

Specificity of information—Managers and researchers recognized the problem of 

data specificity. Managers typically seek site-specific information that is collected 

at the same time and spatial scale as their geographic unit. They found it more difficult to find information or apply research findings conducted on a larger scale. For 

example, data from the NVUM was considered valuable; however, it often was not 

collected on the scale most needed by managers (site, watershed). 

Generalizing from cases—Managers expressed difficulty applying findings from 

existing studies to suit their particular situation. They need researchers to translate, 

interpret, or synthesize findings so that it is immediately applicable to them. One 

researcher explained, “What do managers like? ... Managers have a harder time 

consuming general research. [A paradox] is that the ideal in research is to generalize, but managers want [research] to particularlize.” 

Shelf-life of recreation research—Recreation issues evolve rapidly as values, demographics, and technology shifts. Information needs of managers are immediate. 

Yet, research studies often have a longer time horizon. By the time the study is published, new problems have emerged. As one manager noted, “Recreation research is 

like a dairy product, it has a short shelf life.” 

Resources to utilize information—The recreation manager may have found a 

solution or idea that stemmed from a scientific finding, but owing to budgetary 

constraints, they may not have the funds to actually implement the idea. “People 

[in management] don’t have the ability, time, interest, or support [to apply information.]” Several managers indicated that they simply did not have enough resources 

to do anything with the knowledge they had. Instead, projects were shelved awaiting funding or a shift in priorities that would allow the project to be implemented. 
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

Downsizing, budget cuts, and combining of jobs in the Forest Service have 

challenged the abilities of recreation managers to identify, communicate, interpret, and use scientific information to address issues. Some recreation specialists 

may need additional training to fill gaps in knowledge of recreation concepts and 

principals. Study results also suggest that researchers may consider new ways to 

communicate scientific findings to maximize managers’ ability to access, integrate, 

and implement findings in their daily decisionmaking and planning. 

Future Questions 

1. Managers report difficulty understanding how to communicate information needs to the research community. What processes and structures are already in place for communicating information needs? How 

might these structures be clarified or streamlined to assist managers 

at various levels of the agency? 

2. Managers rely on a variety of sources for scientific information. 

How might systems be developed to help managers navigate various 

sources of scientific information and their possible applications? What 

kind of clearinghouse or database would help managers to understand 

where to go for their recreation information needs? 

3. Managers appear to value tools and applications to help with everyday recreation decisionmaking. What processes are in place to update 

these management tools to suit changing conditions? They also rely 

on the stories and experiences of professional colleagues and retirees 

to evaluate what solutions were successful under specific conditions. 

How might these experiential cases be systematized and packaged as 

a viable source of professional knowledge? 

4. Involvement in large-scale planning processes and environmental 

analyses creates the needs for certain types of social science and recreation data. Often information needs are iterative and adaptive. Data 

are needed at different spatial and longitudinal scales. How are these 

data needs being met and by whom? What is the role of Forest Service 

R&D in producing fine-scale data? 
43

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

Research-Management Interactions 

Scientific exchange can be effective when it involves direct interaction between 

managers and researchers. Frequent interaction between managers and researchers 

can result in enduring relations that build trust, which some science transfer 

specialists deem is the most important factor in affecting whether scientific 

knowledge actually gets used or applied (Alderman et al. 2007, Wright 2007). There 

are a variety of ways researchers and managers work together that result in relevant 

science, including issue identification, problem-framing, collaborative studies, 

planning and prioritization, monitoring, and evaluation. This section explores the 

types of interactions currently taking place between managers and researchers, 

the ideal types of interactions envisioned, and barriers to achieving these ideals. 

Institutional structures and processes that facilitate and inhibit interactions are 

noted. 

Types of interaction—

Forest Service managers and researchers were asked to characterize their current 

interactions and to discuss institutional processes in place that promote interaction. 

Based on responses of 34 managers and 20 researchers, the most common forms 

of interaction are listed in figure 10. Managers and researchers in the Forest 

Service both recognized the broad array of opportunities for working together; 

however, many differences were observed in the frequency of responses in various 

categories. 

Figure 10—Existing types of interaction between managers and researchers. Note: There were 49 recreation managers and 

20 researchers in the sample.
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

Collaboration on research studies—Overall, the most common form of interaction 

noted was the engagement of researchers on studies related to forest management. 

Often these studies were collaborative in nature, although in some cases a standard 

“contract model” was employed, where a researcher was hired to produce a specific 

product, with little involvement from managers. Both managers and researchers 

extolled the value of collaborative research, which was linked to the development 

of applications and tools managers used. However, according to respondents, 

opportunities for long-term collaboration had diminished in recent years. 

As one researcher explained, 

Early on it was both research and management driving the need for 

research.... A bunch of us had base funding and worked closely with 

managers. We understood their concerns and were able to translate. We 

performed a joint function; managers would come to us with money to give 

and help with the work. It was a collaborative approach. We were certainly 

independent from managers, but there was constant dialogue. [I] dealt with 

Chiefs, supervisors, rangers..... [Later] Now that cooperation is completely 

gone. The agencies have lost their way. Timber harvest is gone, resources 

gone, money, expertise–gone. Recreation could be a key driver, but how do 

you do that? We’ve lost management staff, have different kinds of people. 

Lost expertise. 

Although some described the gradual decline in collaboration between managers and researchers over time, others had seen a recent surge in interaction. 

Over the last 3 years, there has been increasing interaction with Forest 

Service social scientists. They are showing more willingness to meet the 

decision demands of the day. I can’t speculate on why this has changed. 

We all learn together on what needs to be done. But, management does not 

always know what to ask and how to ask it. 

Several managers mentioned that the new performance and accountability 

standards issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) may be encouraging researchers to reach out to the NFS to ensure that their research products are 

based in management needs. These standards evaluate the work of scientists based 

on quality and relevance. Input from research clients about the utility and relevance 

of scientific work is sought in evaluating research units. 

National and regional conferences—Participation in national or regional conferences related to recreation also was mentioned, although many respondents 

indicated that the frequency of conferences had declined in recent years. Several 
45

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

respondents heralded the national recreation workshop held in Portland in 2005, 

which convened managers and researchers to discuss recreation issues on a 

national scale. 

This Portland conference was the first conference that I heard of since I was 

with the agency, where researchers and managers were getting together. It 

was fairly well-publicized, but still, it was mostly regional folks, though the 

researchers were more representative of the entire nation.... I heard at the 

conference that the Washington office thinks that researchers and managers 

interact fairly often. I’m not sure why they think that. 

Informal relations and onsite interactions—Researchers, on the other hand, were 

more apt to note the prevalence of onsite technology transfer activities, issue-based 

workshops, joint field trips, short courses, and other means of disseminating information to managers. Notably, few managers acknowledged these types of interactions. And, researchers were more likely to mention the importance of personal ties 

and informal relations with managers. Some managers indicated that they had a 

circle of scientists they called upon to discuss problems or brainstorm information 

sources. These exploratory findings suggest that managers are more apt to acknowledge formal processes for interaction, whereas researchers may recognize the role 

of informal ties and personal relations. Further research may be needed to explore 

perceptions and practices of formal and informal interaction styles. 

Leadership teams and research liaisons—Managers were more likely to note that 

interactions with Forest Service R&D took place at the regional level through station leadership teams. Several managers noted that representatives from the stations 

participated to varying degrees in regional planning efforts. Station directors, unit 

or program managers and scientists participated in these planning processes. In a 

few cases, respondents were aware of research station liaisons that had been identified and were charged with linking research and management priorities. Although 

liaisons may be established in other regions, they were not mentioned. One manager explained, “The region has a Science and Leadership Council. Station leaders 

and Supervisors come together quarterly to talk about issues and science and to 

identify the most frequently litigated issues. They try to hone in on those issues.” 

Other managers mentioned the New England Leadership group as an example of a 

regional leadership team consisting of managers and researchers, which links issues 

in Washington, DC, with regional priorities. Interestingly, very few researchers in 

the sample mentioned these higher-level, more formal means of interaction. 
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

Planning and assessment processes—Managers readily noted researcher participation in forest or local planning processes, although this was seldom acknowledged as a form of interaction by researchers, who perhaps did not perceive this 

interaction as constituting “‘research” or were not rewarded for these activities. 

Meanwhile, researchers pointed to manager involvement in the development of station or unit strategic planning processes and technical assessments. Managers did 

not mention this type of involvement with Forest Service R&D. Either the managers 

interviewed had not participated in these technical assessments with the research 

units, or they were not readily cognizant of these opportunities for input into the 

research agenda. 

Ideal interactions—

Managers and researchers in the Forest Service were asked to characterize their 

ideal type of interaction. A total of 43 managers and 19 researchers responded. One 

researcher noted that the nature of interaction differed depending on the problem 

or issue, the personalities involved, and the goal at hand. Still, managers and 

researchers readily enumerated various factors or qualities that they would consider 

ideal (fig. 11). Although many similarities between managers and researchers were 

evident, other important differences emerged from this analysis. 

Figure 11—Types of ideal interactions. Note: There were 49 recreation managers and 20 researchers in the sample.
47

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

Collaborative research—Both managers and researchers lauded the benefits of 

collaborative research, which allows researchers and managers to work together 

to identify issues in recreation management, establish information needs, frame 

research questions, and cooperate in data collection, analysis and interpretation, as 

well as monitoring. As one manager explained, 

Ideally, it would begin with the needs of land managers. We could say, “I 

have a need.” The interaction would cause a conversation to occur, and 

dialogue. Hopefully, we could draw on the expertise of research to examine 

the problem. The challenge is to take research and apply it. [Another challenge] is to agree on what kind of research needs to be conducted. Ideally, 

we would follow through with a followup dialogue, “How did it go? How 

could we monitor?” 

Another manager echoed this approach, “Ideally, you would present problems, 

issues, or thoughts about the data you thought you were lacking, or that you needed, 

to researchers. Researchers would help you design a study to get information that 

you were lacking.” 

The collaborative approach was preferred by managers because of the blending of expertise, including on-the-ground knowledge of managers with conceptual 

frameworks of researchers. The collaborative model often was contrasted with more 

top-down approaches, where researchers arrived with pre-developed questions 

and prepared research agendas. Several studies have indicated that collaboration 

and direct contact between researchers and managers are often more effective and 

preferred means of sharing information (Graham and Kruger 2002, White 2004, 

Youngblood et al. 2007). 

Direct communication of needs—In addition to collaborative research, both 

managers and researchers sought vehicles or venues for the open and direct transmission of information needs. Managers sought ways to communicate these needs 

within the NFS and to the research community. As one manager explained, “We 

should be asking managers at the lower level what their needs are. There should be 

direct communication to identify priority research needs. I don’t know where this is 

occurring and am not sure if the information is getting down to our level.” 
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

Researchers sought better ways to gain insight about information and research 

that could benefit managers. In developing mechanisms for the sharing of information needs, researchers may need to be clear and realistic about the nature of their 

role and approach. A recreation manager described this problem well, 

The problem managers have is that they go to researchers and say, “I have 

this problem, solve it.” What is preferred is that the manager says, “I have 

this problem,” and the researcher says, “Have you thought of a, b, and c.” 

Researchers are not always able to solve problems immediately, but may 

help managers to frame the question in a way that appropriate information could 

be sought. 

Research presentations—Managers in the sample particularly valued the opportunity to learn about existing research efforts from recreation scientists. Presentations 

at workshops, conferences, or onsite trainings were often noted by managers as 

being valuable to them. Several mentioned regional recreation research groups that 

gathered for occasional “show and tell” by researchers and the sharing of case studies and successful models by managers. As one manager explained, 

From a district perspective, it would be great to have a week during the 

winter where we identified the significant issues on the district. For a week, 

staff [could] learn all they could from scientific background, trends, and 

relationships between resource issues. And, then, briefings, presentations, 

and workshops on how to use that information as decisions are made 

throughout the year. 

The California Recreation Roundtable, initiated by state officials, was acknowledged as a positive example of technology transfer, as well as the annual Northeast 

Recreation Research Conference. In an ideal world, particularly from the management standpoint, there would be more opportunities for information exchange. 

Researchers in the field—Managers were more likely to mention the idea of 

embedding researchers into ranger districts and field sites to help them gain understanding of the daily realities of resource specialists and district rangers in the 

Forest Service. Some talked about the idea of researchers doing occasional details 

or sabbaticals in a field setting, similar to the “sabbatical in the parks” program 

sponsored by the National Park Service. Others noted the value of extended field 

trips where managers and researchers visit sites together and identify problems that 

could be addressed by recreation scientists. One model of field participation was 

noted by a manager, 
49

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

There would be listening and field participation. Tech transfer does not 

seem to be rewarded in the research system; rewards are for publishing. 

The Station in [name of city] is the best example. Local scientists are very 

interactive with us; they go on field trips. They have developed tools and 

conduct tech transfer. There is almost constant interaction. We see them 

every month. 

Managers felt strongly that researchers could benefit from a real-world understanding of the recreation setting and the complex operating environment. These 

remarks appear to reflect a shared perception that researchers have lost touch with 

the real world of recreation management. Interestingly, few researchers identified 

the need for field experience as a component of an ideal interaction. 

Personal ties and long-term, iterative dialogue—Forest Service researchers were 

more likely to identify the need for long-term, iterative contacts that were based on 

professional interests and personal ties. Researchers were eager to develop close 

bonds with a few managers as a way to develop a long-term dialogue about issues 

of shared importance. As one researcher explained, 

It is a continuous dialogue where people in each group know the other 

group and where they are headed and what their concerns are and might 

be. When a crisis or urgent information need comes up, then it is not so 

difficult to communicate and share information as it might be if there was 

less communication. ... Given the rapidly changing context of recreation 

resource management, it is critical that we maintain a dialogue and look for 

trends and prospects. 

In general, researchers sought informal contacts rather than structured relations 

and formal research contracts. 

Formal relations and shared program of work—Managers were more likely 

to indicate a preference for formal ties at higher levels (regional and national) to 

identify common priorities and better link research agendas with management 

needs. They valued more contractual relations with researchers as well as the 

formal incorporation of liaisons or extension agents to disseminate and interpret 

research findings. Two managers’ comments reflected the idea of formalized, 

shared strategies to focus on resource management problems. 

The ideal would be if, early on, research and management communicated 

on which products would be the most beneficial. We should have a clear 

program of work and products that keep researchers on track. We should 

have a reward system consistent with that, to follow the program of work. 
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

Products should have a pragmatic application and may not have a publication application. 

It’s about personalities ... people. [It’s about] researchers, who understand 

that their role is to help manage as much as the district manager’s role is to 

manage. There is too much separation between research and management. 

We need to help them to get focused on our problems. 

This point of view was not widely shared by researchers in the sample, who 

preferred to have more autonomy about the nature of their research direction and 

who reiterated their role in addressing long-term research questions in addition 

to short-term needs. For many researchers in Forest Service R&D, the need for 

independence in setting their own agenda was essential, suggesting that autonomy 

may be an important theme in the division’s organizational culture, that harkens 

back to the division’s early history. These differences may suggest the need for a 

variety of innovative approaches in building opportunities for interactions between 

managers and researchers. 

Barriers to ideal interactions—

Although there were demonstrated differences between managers and researchers 

as to what constituted “ideal interactions,” there was general agreement about the 

most prominent barriers to achieving these interactions (fig. 12). Forty-seven managers and eleven researchers identified barriers. The list of barriers identified were 

varied and numerous, but analysis points to the need for awareness of differences 

between research and management, acknowledgement of roles, and creating opportunities for interaction and exchange. We discuss several of these barriers below. 

Organizational differences between research and management—Managers and 

researchers largely recognized that although they inhabited the same agency, they 

operated in different professional worlds, with different goals, incentives, and 

measures of success. Some attributed the differences to the deliberate housing of 

research and management in separate divisions. 

Some respondents observed that the structure of autonomous divisions resulted 

in a “wedge” or “chasm” between research and management. “There is an invisible 

wall between research and management that needs to be torn down. We need to get 

the researchers amongst us. They are too independent. You don’t have the infusion 

unless you work amongst each other.” 
51

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

Figure 12—Barriers to achieving ideal interactions. Note: There were 49 recreation managers and 20 researchers in the sample.

Others recognized the importance of an independent research division, but 

urged that the agency find ways to bridge the gap so that research is more responsive or tuned in to management concerns. As one manager, exclaimed, 

Researchers feel a need to maintain their professional independence. But 

we are not asking them to alter their findings to fit our needs. I find that 

hollow. It’s more that researchers feel that rubbing shoulders with the real 

world will tarnish their lofty distance. 

One aspect of this cultural barrier is the focus of Forest Service R&D on basic 

science and long-term studies. As one manager put succinctly, “There is a cultural 

barrier. There is separation between valuing research which is longer term, versus 

acquiring immediate answers.” Differences between managers and researchers have 

been described as a barrier to information and technology exchange in the context 

of other studies as well (Sydoriak 2007, Wright 2007). 

A main focus of this different operating reality lies in the incentives that 

motivate researchers’ work. Scientists in the Forest Service are rewarded most 

highly for publication of their work in peer-reviewed journals. Both the number of 

publications produced and reputations of the journals used are evaluated. Direct 

technology and information transfer is perceived to be of secondary importance 
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

for a scientist’s promotion. Recreation managers in the sample indicated significant 

time constraints, limiting their opportunities to access and digest journal articles. 

The emphasis on publication of scientific articles often means that the researcher 

does not make time for disseminating results in a format that managers may readily 

access. This manager identified problems in the reward system for researchers. 

The bottom line: at universities, in the Forest Service [Research], academia, 

is to keep the eye on the prize defined by publications, even when they 

have the best intentions on a project. Managers are more pragmatic and 

utilitarian. Research moves into the theoretical. There are initiation rites 

associated with the research reward system. 

Another manager commented, 

Research doesn’t always focus on immediate management needs. They 

are focused on publications, while managers are focused on immediate 

problems. The reward system is different for researchers versus managers. 

It would be heaven on Earth to have a social scientist working with us on 

these issues. 

Time constraints—

Managers and researchers alike often acknowledged that the needs of managers 

for immediate answers contrasted with the emphasis in Forest Service R&D on 

long-term studies, basic research, and the development of theoretical models 

and methodological approaches. One manager captured the sentiments of many, 

“Sometimes the timeliness of getting information [is a concern.] They [managers] 

come up with questions that they need immediate answers for, but have to wait a 

few years for the study. You have to predict what questions you want answered.” 

Managers continued to rely on Forest Service scientists in long-term collaborative studies, but for projects requiring a quick turnaround time, they often hired 

private consulting firms or turned to universities that had graduate students eager 

for research experience. Researchers acknowledged that their results took time to 

produce and often did not meet the timing needs of managers. 

Absence of networking opportunities—Both managers and researchers lamented 

the dearth of opportunities for information-gathering and research exchange. One 

researcher compared present reality with the operating environment early in his 

career. 

There has been a diminishment of formal structures. In any given year 

in the first decade [1970s] one could guarantee 4 to 10 major recreation 
53

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

management meetings across the country on a regular basis. I would be 

invited to come. ... Managers were creating the venues in which interaction 

was taking place; we were debating and discussing policy issues. There 

were ready-made opportunities to say: Here is what we are doing, and listen 

to what we may be doing. That is virtually non-existent now. 

One researcher explained that leadership was needed in Forest Service R&D. 

“The networks don’t exist for researchers. The social scientist linkages have 

been broken. The Washington office does not provide leadership or a home for 

social scientists.” The need for national direction to develop, fund, and sustain 

opportunities for interaction between managers and researchers dealing with 

recreation problems and issues was frequently mentioned. 

Relevance—A prominent concern for recreation managers in the sample was the 

relevance of existing recreation research and the need for applied research grounded 

in real-world experiences found in the field. Although managers often acknowledged the value of long-term, basic studies, many were frustrated by the dearth of 

applied research, experiential case studies, and applications useful for managing in 

a complex environment. As one manager explained succinctly, “Managers are more 

focused on users and recreationists rather than looking at an issue in a scholarly 

fashion.” As one manager emphasized, managers need relevant information in a 

language that they understand. “ We don’t need a dissertation; we need relevant information.” Another manager echoed these sentiments, “There is a cultural barrier. 

There is separation between valuing research which is longer term, versus acquiring immediate answers.” 

Managers discussed ideas for exposing researchers to the realities of the field, 

through field trips, details, and sabbaticals. Although there were many examples 

noted of Forest Service researchers who had conducted applied research or who 

provided information of immediate use, one-third of sampled managers expressed 

this as a concern. 

Ability to fund research—Managers also explained that they had little discretionary money to fund research related to recreation. Long-term basic studies were 

viewed as a luxury and were trumped by other priorities. Several managers said 

that they lacked funds to travel to recreation conferences or to sponsor recreation 

workshops in the local area. Meanwhile, they noted that researchers also were 

challenged by budget constraints and were moving away from recreation research 

in favor of topics with more substantial funding, such as fire. Researchers had lost 

much of their base funding to do studies, relying more on NFS sources to pay for 

research. 
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

Awareness of existing research—In some cases, managers said they were simply 

unaware that Forest Service R&D had units or teams focused on social sciences 

or on recreation. Approximately 30 percent of the sample indicated that they were 

unaware of what recreation research was available, who in the Forest Service was 

engaged in recreation studies, or how to contact them for assistance. 

Alignment of management and research priorities—Managers frequently suggested that a significant barrier to improved interactions is the lack of formal alignment between resource management goals and priorities and those of Forest Service 

R&D. Several managers described the need for mutual strategic leadership meetings for Forest Service R&D to more closely match their research programs with 

the problems managers face on the ground. 

Researchers conceive of a project and come up and do the research, but 

[my] interests are not captured in the effort. Research is not coordinated. 

There is no fusion of research and management interests. ... Research does 

research things and management does management things. The challenge 

is to work on mutually beneficial outcomes. 

Scientific mindset—Managers and researchers also were in agreement that downsizing and a decline in funding for professional training of recreation personnel 

was responsible for the absence of a scientific mindset among recreation managers. 

Many noted that contemporary recreation specialists often did not possess formal 

training in recreation as in years past, and were less comfortable with social science. As a result, they may lack knowledge of core principals of recreation management, awareness of the history of recreation research, or understanding of the ways 

that research and science-based applications might assist in addressing everyday 

management problems. Networking opportunities to expose retrained managers to 

recreation concepts and scientists were often suggested. 

Sensory overload—Several managers described the challenge of being overwhelmed with information, e-mails, and electronic “chatter,” noting that it was 

difficult to process and manage various inputs. E-mails bearing topics related to 

recreation research simply get deleted in an effort to manage the daily workload. 

As one manager expressed, 

If the [station] is putting out recreation bulletins, why are we not seeing 

them? I’m dealing with 50 messages a day and you don’t absorb it all. They 

are overly depending on e-mail as the primary form of communication and 

assume that everyone is informed. 
55

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

Several managers felt that researchers relied too heavily on e-mail and Internet 

communications, preferring a more diverse communications strategy that included 

face-to-face encounters. 

Research responsiveness—Many examples of researchers being responsive to 

manager needs were described by respondents, yet recreation managers sometimes 

noted that they had contacted Forest Service researchers for assistance with various 

questions, problems, or information needs, but researchers either did not respond to 

these inquiries or were unable to help. In other cases, they were told that there were 

no researchers available to address a particular problem or need. 

Workload—Managers often referred to challenges associated with the heavy workload resulting from increasing responsibilities and decreasing personnel. Under 

these conditions, interaction with researchers is very difficult. Managers referred 

to being in “crisis management mode” or “stuck in the trenches” and unable to take 

time to consider big-picture issues. As one manager explained, 

For me, it takes discretionary time in a day, a week, and a year, on a regular 

basis to contemplate issues. Folks like me and higher are swept into a 

frenzy of crises. We get into a trench mentality. It’s hard to think creatively 

when you are swatting at rattlesnakes at your feet. There is not an intellectual zone for the contemplation of issues. 

Funding and research protocols—Researchers in the study explained that one of 

the biggest barriers they faced in conducting research was the requirements of the 

OMB related to paperwork reduction and protection of human subjects (Office of 

Management and Budget 2007). The OMB stipulates that any social science research that involves more than nine human subjects must be approved by OMB 

officers, who evaluate the study based on methodological approach, reliability and 

validity, content, and burden on subjects. The amount of time it takes to prepare a 

study for OMB review, revise based on reviewer comments, and await approval can 

exceed a year. This schedule makes it difficult for researchers to be immediately 

responsive to management needs. Although not noted by recreation managers in 

this study, researchers are keenly aware of this constraint on their ability to adopt 

expedient timelines. 

Another barrier raised by researchers dealt with funding for recreation research. 

Recreation researchers typically rely on base funding to conduct studies, which is 

to some extent at the discretion of station directors. According to researchers in 

the study, support for recreation research varies widely among station directors. 
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

Researchers in Forest Service R&D seek foundation support and other “softmoney” sources for recreation research, but funding options are slim, compared to 

other high-stakes topics, such as wildland fire and climate change. 

Capacity for research-management interactions—

As the agency’s recreation workforce undergoes changes and budgets have become 

constrained, the opportunities for recreation managers and researchers to interact 

have been impacted. Interaction is a critical element in successful exchange of 

technology and information (Wright 2005). Existing and emerging structures to 

promote interaction may be used in combination to create an environment where 

researchers and managers can build trust, shared experiences, common language, 

and collegiality that are important elements for effective knowledge exchange 

(Rogers 1995). 

Managers and researchers in the Forest Service discussed a variety of ways 

in which they currently interact. Research collaboration, attending national and 

regional conferences, participation in regional leadership teams, and long-term 

informal relations were most commonly mentioned. Managers were more apt to 

note formal, structural relations between managers and researchers, particularly 

those occurring at higher levels. Meanwhile, researchers reflected on the informal 

and personal ties and consultancy relations they shared with managers. Many 

observed that opportunities for interaction had diminished significantly since the 

1980s, noting the declining frequency of national or regional recreation conferences 

involving managers and researchers. Changes in personnel had severed long-term 

relations between managers and researchers, reducing opportunities for informal 

interactions. Structured means of interaction, such as involvement in regional 

leadership teams, local planning processes, and research unit reviews, seem to have 

replaced long-term collaborations common in previous years. 

Managers and researchers shared similar views of what characterizes an ideal 

interaction. Both heralded the need for collaboration on recreation research, developing channels for communication of information needs on a regional and national 

level, and creating forums for sharing research results and new applications. 

Although managers valued the notion of researchers becoming embedded in the 

field, researchers sought opportunities to develop informal relations based on longterm dialogue about shared issues and problems. Both managers and researchers 

appreciated opportunities for research visits to the forest for training, technology 

transfer, and field trips. 

Managers and researchers identified numerous barriers to achieving these ideal 

interactions. Some barriers were associated with the autonomous and independent 

nature of Forest Service R&D as a separate division. The emphasis of Forest 
57

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

Service R&D on the production of basic scientific knowledge that advances theory 

and methodology does not always match with the managers’ needs for concrete 

information for use in planning models or for experiential cases that provide lessons 

and insights on making recreation management decisions. Moreover, the publication 

schedule for research journals, which typically involves an extended peer review 

process, does not always match the manager’s immediate need for information that 

addresses a real-time problem. 

Future Questions

1. Collegiality among recreation managers and researchers in the Forest 

Service appears to be waning owing to the absence of shared professional networks. What processes may be instituted to promote face-toface interaction and information exchange? 

2. Collaborative research appears to be a highly valued form of interaction, but requires time and financial resources as well as longterm commitment from both researchers and managers. How might 

collaborative research be pursued using existing technologies and 

resources?

3. Managers reported the desire for onsite interactions that would 

encourage information exchange and provide field-based knowledge for recreation researchers. How might this be achieved through 

existing Forest Service mechanisms, such as details and temporary 

assignments? How do newly hired research scientists receive field orientation? 

4. Managers appeared to prefer more structured or formal interactions 

with researchers, such as technical site visits, workshops, field trips, 

and co-participation on leadership teams. Researchers emphasized 

informal, situational, and personal interactions around particular 

issues. How might interactions be designed to accommodate these 

diverse preferences and needs? 

Building and Sustaining Recreation Research Capacity 

Recreation managers have a need for scientific information for planning, assessments, inventories, solving problems related to recreation use, and managing 

recreation across various landscapes. They acquire this information through a 

variety of sources depending on their needs. As stated earlier, Forest Service R&D 
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

is designed to generate scientific knowledge that forms the basis for science-based 

decisionmaking. This section explores the role of Forest Service R&D as a source 

of information for managers. 

Current Recreation Research in the Forest Service

The NFS is not the only client of Forest Service R&D. Forest Service researchers 

design studies on a broad range of topics to suit a variety of clients and to satisfy 

both long and short-term needs. In addition to NFS, Forest Service researchers conduct studies for other federal agencies, state and county governments, nongovernmental organizations, private industry, and international agencies. Some research 

conducted by recreation researchers in Forest Service R&D is highly theoretical. 

Other work has more direct application. Yet, the question remains to what extent 

recreation researchers in the R&D division are responding to manager needs. 

With increased attention to recreation issues in the media and a renewed focus 

on managing recreation from the Forest Service Chief, a recreation research emphasis has been revitalized. In 2005, a Strategic Program Area (SPA) framework was 

adopted by Forest Service R&D, which assigns the work of research units to one 

or more strategic areas. One of these seven strategic areas was recreation. The SPA 

initiative brought together recreation researchers from all of the research stations in 

2006 to discuss a shared research strategy. More than 20 R&D research scientists 

working in aspects of recreation and tourism met in Asheville to explore common areas of interest and future directions. As part of those meetings, researchers 

stated their current topic areas that related to recreation. These topic areas are 

grouped and summarized in figure 13. This list is not exhaustive, but examination 

demonstrates the range of issues and themes of importance. The list also reflects 

the engagement of researchers on broader social science issues in connection with 

recreation, such as governance, diversity, communities, equity, and communication. 

Recreation researchers in the Forest Service appear to be responsive to manager 

needs, although gaps do exist. Studies examining aspects of recreation visitors 

and recreation use patterns top the list of recreation research study areas, which 

is consistent with the information needs identified by managers in this study. In 

addition, several studies are underway that examine the biophysical implications 

of recreation, which also was cited as a research need by managers. Yet, research 

related to recreation conflicts and OHVs, which were of high interest to managers, 

were relatively low on the list of researchers. In addition, researchers in Forest 

Service R&D addressed topics not mentioned by recreation managers, including 

natural resource decisionmaking, tourism, communities, and place. Managers are 
59

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

Figure 13—Recreation research areas for Forest Service Research and Development.

likely finding research on visitor conflicts and OHV use from other sources. Or, 

they are using experiential cases and existing networks of resource professionals’ 

to help them identify solutions. 

Perceived Role of Forest Service Research and Development

Managers and researchers in the sample were asked to discuss their personal understanding of the role of Forest Service R&D within the agency. Questions elicited 

open-ended responses, and those interviewed discussed a variety of elements to 

this question, touching upon more than one thematic area. Two broad categories of 

responses emerged from this question. Some focused on the clients and audiences 

for whom Forest Service R&D should be catering their research. Other responses 

focused on the scope of research, whether the role is to promote basic scientific 

research, applied science, or to satisfy data and information needs. A summary of 

responses appears in table 2. 
60

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

Clients for Forest Service research—

Both researchers and managers recognized that Forest Service R&D catered its 

work to multiple clients and audiences. Forest Service R&D was viewed as an 

organization that assisted both NFS managers and served the needs of the wider 

community (e.g., other federal land management agencies, state and local agencies, 

private and nongovernmental organizations, and the general public). Researchers often felt that managers perceived their client-focus to be exclusively on the 

NFS and readily emphasized the multiclient perspective. Although a portion (25 

percent) of managers stated that Forest Service R&D should maintain an exclusive 

NFS-focus, most (71 percent) had a softer view on this, urging R&D to develop 

their research agenda based on issues faced by resource managers, but not be tied 

exclusively to management concerns. A significant number of researchers also 

agreed with this premise. Other managers noted that R&D served other clients, 

researchers, and the American public. 

Research scope—

The function of Forest Service R&D was a topic of emphatic discussion. Both 

managers and researchers recognized that Forest Service R&D occupied a dual 

role. One the one hand, Forest Service R&D was a source of basic scientific knowledge related to natural resource processes and principles, emphasizing long-term, 

dedicated studies that made advances in theory and methodology, as well as contributions in scientific understanding that more broadly inform management. On the 

other hand, they recognized the need for applied research that is problem-driven, as 

well as the development and applications for immediate use by managers engaged 

in planning and decisionmaking. 

Table 2—Perceived role of Forest Service Research and Development

Role of Forest Service R&D Managers (34) Researchers (18)

Percent

Primary Align research issues and problems 71 33

client faced by natural resource managers

Serve National Science Foundation 25 11

 mission directly

Serve multiple clients 2 33

Serve the American public 9 11

 Serve the research community 6 11

Research Applied scientific research (science 44 21

scope delivery, tools, development)

Basic scientific research (long term, 35 33

future-oriented)

Data and information source 8 0

Note: There were 49 recreation managers and 20 researchers included in the sample.
61

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

The need to preserve the role of basic scientific research was echoed by 

managers and researchers alike, although researchers tended to value this function more readily. Researchers talked about how their agendas were being driven 

by immediate management needs to a greater extent, resulting in more applied, 

problem-driven analysis and short-term studies. As one researcher stated, “We 

have lost attention to the real research. Now, we do more development applications 

and support of management. We’ve lost theory and conceptual frameworks. Now, 

people in management want their hand held.” 

Researchers strongly emphasized the ongoing need to tackle future-oriented 

questions and develop an integrated, long-term research agenda that dealt with 

problems over a range of temporal and spatial scales—studies that may not directly 

address manager questions in real time, but provide a rich context for understanding the complexity of problems. Managers facing increasing pressures on their 

everyday work lives also saw value in preserving some element of a big-picture 

view. As one manager explained, “I think of research as our eye to the future as 

well as the people that have a chance to stop and think.” Sometimes there was a 

perception that researchers worked in isolation from real resource problems and 

focused on topics of personal interest rather than more broadly shared concerns 

related to recreation managers. As one manager urged, “A certain percentage of 

research should be dedicated to address problems that are biting us—pressing 

issues rather than researchers picking their own favorite things.” While most 

managers recognized the importance of basic science and appreciated its role, 

there was a tendency to emphasize applied research. 

There should be a balance of theoretical and applied, for managers. Not so 

far as to say that research should be less thoughtful, but primarily it should 

be to serve an applied role. We don’t have the luxury as taxpayers to pay 

for theoretical research. People don’t know that the Forest Service has a 

research branch. Why should tax dollars be funding research that is not 

applied? ...Unless research has a direct application, it may not be worth the 

money. 

I have always felt that research has two functions. They [researchers] should 

provide new information to resource management as a whole, and they 

should provide specific research that supports on-the-ground management. 

... Secondly, they have to continue to distill tools for managers. This is job 

protection. If they are not helping managers solve public land management 

issues, maybe they will go under. 
62

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

Managers appear to appreciate the role of Forest Service R&D as advancing 

the field of recreation knowledge and promoting general scientific understanding. 

Yet, their frustration appears to lie with the fact that they have little immediate need 

for basic science and tremendous need for applied research, syntheses, and case 

studies that they can use in their recreation decisionmaking. Moreover, in times 

of budget decline and downsizing, research is viewed by many as an unnecessary 

luxury. “What is the point of having research when we can’t keep the toilets clean?” 

is a commonly echoed sentiment. These observations suggest that the agency as a 

whole contemplate its role in a mix of basic and applied research related to natural 

resource management. 

Strategies for Bridging Research and Management

In 1981, Yoesting (1981) published a paper describing the status of recreation 

research and its use in Forest Service decisionmaking. First, he argued that research 

needed to be timely if it is to be used in decisionmaking related to critical problems or issues. Managers most often need information within a 6- to 12-month 

framework, whereas research may require 3 or more years from funding to publication. For research to make a difference in decisionmaking, this gap needs to be 

tightened. Although the length of time it takes to publish results will be difficult 

to accelerate, there may be ways for researchers to share results and intermediate 

products with managers. Second, Yoesting identified a need for research findings 

that are relevant and applicable to the problem at hand. Under existing reward 

systems, he noted, applied research is not highly valued, which means that extra 

steps to develop manager applications may not be taken. Third, research results 

need to be disseminated in outlets available to managers, who may not have access 

to academic journals or time to read them. He urged the development of reward 

systems for researchers who reached out to managers in direct ways, such as use 

of cooperative extension programs. In the 25 years since publication of this article, 

much recreation research has been completed that is timely, applicable, and accessible. Yet, interviews with recreation managers and researchers in 2006 suggest that 

these three challenges are still salient. 

While reports about diminished funding, reduced personnel, and increased 

workloads reverberated throughout interviews, we also unearthed many ideas 

for how to use existing capacity to improve access to research and researchers. 

Throughout the interviews, managers and researchers identified specific structural 

and institutional changes that they believed could potentially improve the ability 

of managers to access recreation research and build bridges with scholars engaged 
63

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

in the study of recreation problems. This section summarizes or encapsulates ideas 

suggested throughout the interviews and mentioned in early sections of this paper. 

Processes to improve recreation information exchange—

Several structures and processes were identified that promote information 

exchange. These structures attempt to organize existing research and legitimize 

the use of professional knowledge and case studies as sources of information. 

Recreation information clearinghouse—Managers desire a Web site that includes 

a searchable database of all recreation studies organized by keywords, authors, and 

geographic regions. This would help managers to search for publications (station 

manuscripts and academic journals) relating to recreation. The Web site at http://

www.hd.gov/ combines information relating to a variety of human dimensions 

topics, including recreation, and serves as a model or a host for a recreation-specific 

data clearinghouse. 

Extension agents—Several managers and researchers suggested that the cooperative extension model that is used in the USDA and in universities, particularly 

with an agriculture focus, could be adapted or applied to natural resources issues. 

Extension agents could help to develop publications that translate, synthesize or 

interpret research findings in recreation. 

Case studies in recreation management—Managers often relied on internal networks that offered stories, experiential cases of solutions and strategies that have 

been tried by others. The institutionalization and acceptance of this form of professional knowledge in the form of natural resource cases may help others to develop 

their own solutions that meet local needs. 

Recreation knowledge synthesis—Managers were eager to have access to short, 

accessible papers that synthesize the current state of knowledge on a particular 

topic or set of topics, such as recreation motivations, conflict, or biophysical effects. 

Ideally, managers hoped these synthetic pieces would be updated periodically with 

current findings. 

Processes to encourage recreation manager-researcher interactions—

Managers and researchers noted several mechanisms that may be considered to 

facilitate greater contact between managers and the research community. Formal 

processes promoting interaction were sought, particularly by managers, given that 

opportunities for informal exchange had diminished because of staff turnover and 

time constraints. 
64

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

Recreation research directory—Managers shared that they were not currently 

aware of who was engaged in recreation research, both in universities and in government agencies, and what their areas of expertise were. A directory of recreation 

scholars with links to publications may help managers to identify persons with 

whom to collaborate to address recreation challenges. 

Boundary spanners—Many suggested that staff be assigned to the role of 

boundary spanner to help managers translate issues into researchable questions and 

to link managers with professional colleagues and scientists. Boundary spanners 

also could work with researchers to identify managers with research interests. 

Some social scientists interviewed who work in NFS indicated that this boundaryspanning role is part of their job description, but that it typically gets subsumed by 

other tasks. 

National and regional recreation meetings—The model of regional and national 

recreation conferences held with predictable regularity was one most often mentioned by managers and researchers. Momentum gained in the 2005 recreation conference in Portland may be capitalized upon to solidify budding relations between 

recreation managers and researchers operating at multiple levels of government, 

universities, nonprofits, and the private sector. One venue that attracts recreation 

researchers is the annual meeting of the International Symposium on Society and 

Resource Management. An existing conference such as this may represent an appropriate setting to rekindle this exchange, although manager awareness of and 

participation in this meeting has been relatively modest. 

Show and tell—Managers appreciated “show and tell” opportunities to learn about 

recreation research and applications. Science fairs, brown-bag presentations, training, and other ideas were mentioned. Budget constraints and increasing responsibilities inhibit travel to scientific meetings for many managers; onsite, direct, information sharing sessions are often preferred. 

Forest field trips and sabbaticals—Both researchers and managers mentioned the 

success of field trips and “workshops in the woods” that brought researchers and 

policymakers onto public lands with managers to share information about current 

dilemmas and brainstorm solutions in an informal setting. In addition, several managers suggested offering details and sabbaticals for researchers to spend time in the 

national forests. The National Park Service “Sabbaticals in the Parks” program may 

be investigated as a programmatic model for encouraging scientists to spend time 

in the field. 
65

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

The exchange of scientific information and the interaction between managers 

and scientists would both lead to stronger professional networks in recreation, 

allowing recreation professionals to develop a common language, identity, and 

sense of purpose about the importance of recreation. Some have referred to a 

“community of practice” in recreation that would promote collegiality, encourage 

professional development, develop institutional memory, and build recreation 

knowledge (Wenger 1999). If a community of practice is desired, many of the 

ideas generated by respondents may be considered. A commitment to developing 

recreation knowledge and leadership to promote the Forest Service as a leading 

source of that knowledge may be needed to achieve these goals. 

Areas of Future Research

This research was designed as an exploratory study to understand dynamics of 

organizational capacity beyond the standard measures of personnel, facilities, and 

budget line items. Open-ended interviews with recreation managers and researchers 

allowed us to understand the depth and complexity of the Forest Service operating 

environment, and learn about the opportunities and constraints that managers and 

researchers face. This broad brush examination of the role of scientific information 

in decisionmaking helped to identify possible relations between key variables that 

can be explored in future studies. 

• Mapping social networks among scientists and managers. Further 

research is needed to understand how university and station scientists are 

interacting with managers and at what level of the agency. Are certain managers more prone to working with researchers? At what level of the agency 

do they operate? Is scientist interaction part of their job description (e.g., 

boundary spanner), or is this an assumed role, based on an individual propensity to interact with the research community? 

• Identifying characteristics of successful research-management interactions. Respondents in this study mentioned specific cases where collaboration between managers and scientists was perceived to be successful. By 

selecting several cases and conducting followup interviews with key individuals involved, factors associated with successful interaction in specific 

conditions may be identified. What factors or conditions contributed to the 

success of this interaction? What stage(s) of the process did managers and 

researchers become involved? What resources were required? 
66

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

• Understanding the role of science in recreation decisionmaking. Using 

findings from this exploratory study, a followup survey of recreation managers and scientists may be developed to explore the role of various factors in shaping recreation management actions of various kinds. This study 

could help to further delineate the role of science in decisionmaking in 

relation to other factors and identify what conditions promote a tendency 

toward science-based decisionmaking. 

• Exploring the use of experiential or case-based knowledge in decisionmaking. Managers often noted that scientific information and recreation 

research did not play a direct role in everyday actions, but provided a foundation. Instead, managers relied on anecdotal accounts and stories from 

colleagues to make judgments and decisions. Research is needed to explore 

how and under what conditions these experiential forms of knowledge are 

incorporated. What elements of these experiential cases are most useful to 

managers? How might these sources of knowledge be legitimized and institutionalized? 

• Developing indicators of scientific capacity in natural resource institutions. Qualitative results from the present study revealed a variety of interdependent factors that influence a manager’s ability to identify information 

needs, access information sources, work with researchers, and interpret and 

utilize scientific information in problemsolving. Declines in human and 

financial capabilities affect managers’ ability to work with researchers and 

to incorporate scientific information in their everyday work. A followup 

survey with managers will extract and weigh the significance of various 

factors that affect the propensity for science-based decisions. Survey data 

of a larger sample will provide the basis for theory development in organizational capacity. 

Conclusions 

This research explored agency capacity for producing and using scientific information in addressing recreation issues. We hope that study findings may help to 

improve agency success in promoting effective information exchange through 

interactions between researchers and managers. We began this report by asking 

the question: “Has the Forest Service evolved from an agency of forestry experts to 

an agency of decision-process managers with the capacity to incorporate a broader 

array of scientific information into management decisions?” Interviews with 

recreation professionals and agency researchers suggest that in today’s operating 

environment, new forms of scientific knowledge and a renewed commitment to 
67

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

explore alternative forms of science exchange may be needed for the agency to 

maintain its role as a provider of knowledge, tools, and applications useful to 

address management concerns. 

Forest Service managers and researchers in the study described a situation of 

declining workforce, increasing workloads, diminished budgets, and a lack of time 

to adequately address problems. Many also perceived that recreation occupied a 

lesser status within the agency compared to more high-profile programs, such as 

fire management or commodities production, as exemplified by trends in budget 

allocations and personnel classifications. Meanwhile, managers face pressing and 

often conflicting demands from recreation users, interest groups and citizens as 

well as national and international policy agendas. Capacity constraints make it 

difficult for managers to identify information needs, access information sources, 

or incorporate scientific information in everyday decisionmaking. Moreover, 

diminished agency capacity in recreation appears to have disrupted long-term 

professional networks, which potentially inhibits the ready exchange of scientific 

information. Interagency initiatives, such as “Operation Outdoors,” were successful 

in building capacity for recreation in the 1960s. Yet, these efforts require significant 

investment in time and financial resources to recreation. As the Nation struggles to 

finance disaster cleanup, war, and wildfire, such a commitment seems unlikely. 

Forest Service recreation professionals function in an everyday work environment that is dominated by comprehensive planning and environmental analysis. 

New forms of information are sought to enhance these processes and managers are 

looking both internally and externally to accomplish these goals. Forest Service 

research stations once were recognized as national leaders in the production of 

recreation knowledge. Current managers have been resourceful in finding recreation tools and information from a variety of sources, including nonprofit agencies 

and private industry as well as universities. Managers appear to rely primarily 

on information that is easily accessible, site-specific, and immediately relevant. 

Although empirical research is valued by managers as a foundation for knowledge, 

they also seek applied studies, experiential cases, fine-scale sociodemographic and 

market data, and dynamic tools for “real-time” recreation management. 

Historically, science exchange in the U.S. Forest Service has taken place using 

a variety of approaches that promote interaction between managers and researchers. 

Conferences, field trips, formal training, brown-bag presentations, consultation, and 

collaborative research all have been used at various times and in various combinations to address recreation problems and challenges. Managers appear to acknowledge more formal forms of interaction, such as training and site visits, whereas 

researchers emphasize interaction that is informal, iterative, and long term. Leaders 
68

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

in recreation both in NFS and R&D support a range of structures and processes that 

promote interaction and facilitate awareness, collegiality, and mutual commitment 

to address complex recreation problems. Strides are being made to bring researchers and managers together. The national recreation conference in 2005 served as an 

initial step in developing a community of practice. In addition, national recreation 

research planning has coalesced as part of the Recreation SPA process. As the 

agency faces budget declines, resources for science exchange may be constrained. 

The Forest Service encourages managers to make decisions based on science. 

Adjustments may be necessary to increase the exchange of scientific information. 

Forest Service R&D maintains its multifaceted roles as a provider of fundamental 

(theory-driven) and applied research, a reliable source of scientific data, and a 

producer of innovative tools, models, and applications for land managers. Recreation managers interviewed in this study supported the role of R&D as provider of 

scientific research. Yet, under conditions of financial constraint, opportunities for 

land managers to support targeted administrative studies have waned, putting pressure on other parts of the agency to serve this role. The Forest Service may need to 

consider evaluating its existing capacity to produce site-specific data that is timely, 

relevant, and responsive to manager needs. 

Acknowledgments

Roger Clark and George Stankey provided the inspiration for this study and initiated a series of dialogues that revolved around understanding the capacity of 

natural resource agencies to generate scientific knowledge for use by managers in 

everyday decisionmaking. Peter Nelson conducted telephone interviews for this 

project and assisted with data management, coding, and analysis. His contributions 

to our thinking related to information transfer were very helpful. We thank the 

many individuals involved in these discussions at various times, including Roger 

Skistad, Chris Hanson-Murray, Jamia Hanson-Murray, Linda Kruger, Kelly Lawrence, and Christina Kakoyannis. Eventually, these discussions led to the development of a study plan and a data-collection effort. We thank Susan Charnley, Bruce 

Shindler, and Troy Hall for reviewing the study plan and providing comments. We 

also thank Christina Kakoyannis for help in the development of an interview guide 

and for conducting pilot tests and providing analytical comments. We thank James 

Abscher, Tomas Koontz, and Vita Wright who took time to provide careful reviews 

of this report. Conversations with Dale Blahna helped us to think of ways to interpret findings. Finally, we thank all of the Forest Service and university participants 

who took part in this study. 
69

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

References

Alderman, D.; Nakamoto, K.; Brinberg, D. 2007. From a social marketing 

perspective: a proposed customer relationship management technology transfer 

model. In: Miner, C.; Jacobs, R.; Dykstra, D.; Bittner, B., eds. 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: 1–8. 

Andrews, K.T.; Edwards, B. 2004. Advocacy organizations in the U.S. political 

process. Annual Review of Sociology. 30(1): 479–506. 

Bernard, H.R. 1995. Research methods in anthropology. Walnut Creek, CA: 

Altamira Press. 584 p. 

Blahna, D.J.; Kruger, L.K. 2007. Recreation and the chief’s “National Debate.” 

In: Kruger, L.K.; Mazza, R.; Lawrence, K., eds. Proceedings: National workshop 

on recreation research and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-698. 

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

Research Station: 1–7. 

Burdge, R.J.; Buchanan, T.; Christensen, J.E. 1981. A critical assessment of 

the state of outdoor recreation research. In: Napier, T.L. Outdoor recreation 

planning, perspectives, and research. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing: 

3–11. 

Camp, H.W. 1983. An historical sketch of recreation research in the USDA Forest 

Service. PSW-H-1. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 35 p. 

Clarke, J.N.; McCool, D.C. 1996. Staking out the terrain: power and performance 

among natural resource agencies. 2nd ed. Albany, NY: State University of New 

York Press. 278 p. 

Cordell, K. 2003. A history of recreation research in the southeast: from late 1950s 

to now. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/recreation/serr2003j.html. (December 12, 

2007). 

Creswell, J.W. 2002. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixedmethods approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 

272 p. 
70

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

Douglass, R.W. 1999. History of outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism in 

the United States. In: Cordell, H.K., ed. Outdoor recreation in American life: an 

assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 

15–24. 

Duncan, S. 2000. Closer to the truth: 75 years of discovery in forest and range 

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

Northwest Research Station. 

Farnham, T.J. 1995. Forest Service budget requests and appropriations: What do 

analyses of trends reveal? Policy Studies Journal. 23(2): 253–267. 

Forest History Society 2007. Recreation. http://www.foresthistory.org/Research/

usfscoll/policy/Recreation/. (December 2, 2007).

Grumbine, R.E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology. 

8(1): 27–38. 

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. Kamploops, BC: Southern Interior Forest 

Extension and Research Partnership. [Pages unknown.] 

Horton, D.; Alexaki, A.; Bennett-Lartey, S.; Brice, K.N.; Campilan, D.; 

Carden, F.; de Souza Silva, J.; Duong, L.T.; Khadar, A.; Maestrey Boza, A.; 

Kayes Muniruzzaman, I.; Perez, J.; Somarriba Chang, M.; Vernooy, R.; 

Watts, J. 2003. Evaluating capacity development: experiences from research 

and development organizations around the world. The Hague, Netherlands: 

International Service for National Agricultural Research. http://www.cta.int/

pubs/isnar2/ECDbook(final).pdf. (November 10, 2007).

Jones, E.S.; Taylor, C.P. 1995. Litigating agency change: the impact of the courts 

and administrative appeals process on the Forest Service. Policy Studies Journal. 

23(2): 310–336. 

Kaufman, H. 1960. The forest ranger. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. 259 p. 

Kennedy, J.J.; Quigley, T.M. 1998. Evolution of a USDA Forest Service 

organizational culture and adaptation issues in embracing an ecosystems 

management paradigm. Landscape and Urban Planning. 40(1–3): 113–122. 
71

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

Kruger, L.; Mazza, R.; Lawrence, K. 2007. Proceedings: National workshop on 

recreation research and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-698. Portland, 

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

Station. 230 p. 

Lach, D.; List, P.; Steel, B.S.; Shindler, B. 2003. Advocacy and credibility of 

ecological scientists in resource decisionmaking: a regional study. Bioscience. 

53: 171–179. 

Lachapelle, P.R.; McCool, S.E.; Patterson, M.E. 2003. Barriers to effective 

natural resource planning in a “messy” world. Society and Natural Resources. 

16(6): 473–490. 

Manning, R.E. 1999. Studies in outdoor recreation. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University Press. 374 p.

McCool, S.F.; Clark, R.N.; Stankey, G.H. 2007. An assessment of frameworks 

useful for public land recreation planning. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-705. 

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

Research Station. 125 p.

McCool, S.F.; Cole, D.N., comps. 1997. Proceedings—Limits of acceptable 

change and related planning processes: progress and future directions. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-371. Odgen, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research Station. 84 p. 

Mills, T.J.; Clark, R.N. 2001. Role of research scientists in natural resource 

decisionmaking. Forest Ecology and Management. 153: 190–198. 

Moore, R.L.; Driver, B.L. 2005. Introduction to outdoor recreation: providing 

and managing natural resource based opportunities. State College, PA: Ventura 

Publishing, Inc. 339 p. 

Mowrer, T.H. 2005. Tech transfer in other government agencies: a Web-based 

survey. Unpublished report. On file with author. 

Nelson, P.M. 2006. Organizations, policy problems and decisionmaking: exploring 

the use of information by Forest Service recreation managers. College of Forest 

Resources, University of Washington. 151 p. M.S. thesis. 

Office of Management and Budget. 2007. Standards and guidelines for statistical 

surveys. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/infocoll.html. (December 3, 

2007). 
72

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

President’s Commission Americans Outdoors. 1987. Americans outdoors: the 

legacy, the challenge. The report of the President’s Commission. Washington, 

DC: Island Press. 426 p. 

Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York: Free Press. 519 p. 

Shindler, B.; Cramer, L.A. 1999. Shifting public values for forest management: 

making sense of wicked problems. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 

14(1): 28–34. 

Steen, H.K. 2004. The U.S. Forest Service: a history. Durham, NC: Forest History 

Society. 356 p. 

Steen, H.K. 1998. Forest Service Research: finding answers to conservation’s 

questions. Durham, NC: Forest History Society. 102 p. 

Strauss, A.; Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and 

procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications, Inc. 312 p. 

Sydoriak, C. 2007. In search of the science integration keystone. In: Miner, C.; 

Jacobs, R.; Dykstra, D.; Bittner, B., eds. Proceedings: International conference 

on transfer of forest science knowledge and technology. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-726. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station: 34–45. 

Tipple, T.; Wellman, D. 1991. Herbert Kaufman’s forest ranger thirty years 

later: from simplicity and homogeneity to complexity and diversity. Public 

Administration Review. 51(5): 421–428. 

Tweed, W.C. 1978. A history of outdoor recreation development in national 

forests: 1891–1942. Clemson, SC: Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism 

Management. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA Forest Service]. 1974.

Outdoor recreation research: applying the results. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-9. St. 

Paul, MN: North Central Forest Experiment Station. 113 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA Forest Service]. 1992. 

The National Forests, America’s great outdoors: national recreation strategy. 

Washington, DC. 14 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA Forest Service]. 1995. 

Navigating into the future. Rennselaerville roundtable: integrating science and 

policymaking. Washington, DC. U.S. Government Printing Office. 16 p. 
73

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA Forest Service]. 1997. 

Report of the Forest Service, FY96. http://www.fs.fed.us/pl/pdb/96report/. 

(December 2, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA Forest Service]. 1998. 

Report of the Forest Service, FY97. http://www.fs.fed.us/pl/pdb/97report/. 

(December 2, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA Forest Service]. 1999. 

Report of the Forest Service, FY98. http://www.fs.fed.us/pl/pdb/98report/. 

(December 2, 2007). 

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

2002. Report of the Forest Service, FY01. http://www.fs.fed.us/

publications/2001/2001_Report-of-FS.pdf. (December 2, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA Forest Service]. 2003. 

Report of the Forest Service, FY02. http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/documents/

report-of-fs-2002-low-res.pdf. (December 2, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA Forest Service]. 2004.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Performance and Accountability 

Report, FY03. http://www.fs.fed.us/plan/par/2003/final/index.shtml. (December 

2, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA Forest Service]. 2005.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Performance and Accountability 

Report, FY04. http://www.fs.fed.us/plan/par/2004/. (December 2, 2007). 

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

2007a. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service strategic Plan FY 

2007–2012. FS-880. Washington, DC. http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/

strategic /fs-sp-fy-07-12.pdf. 32 p. (December 2, 2007).

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

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. President’s Budget, FY08. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/budget-2008/fy2008-forest-service-budgetjustification.pdf. (December 2, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA Forest Service]. 2008. 

Forest service regions.http://www.fs.fed.us/contactus.regions.shtml. (January 8, 

2008). 
74

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

Warrington, G.E. 2007. Organizing information for natural resource management. 

In: Miner, C.; Jacobs, R.; Dykstra, D.; Bittner, B., eds. 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: 47–53. 

Wellman, J.D. 1987. Foresters’ core values and cognitive styles: issues for wildand 

recreation management and policy. Policy Studies Review. 7(2): 395–403. 

Wenger, E. 1999. Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. 

Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 336 p. 

Wright, V. 2006. Overcoming barriers to the use of science in national parks. 

In: Harmon, D., ed. 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: 400–404. 

Wright, V. 2007. Communication barriers to applying federal research in support 

of land management in the United States. In: Miner, C.; Jacobs, R.; Dykstra, 

D.; Bittner, B., eds. 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: 56–62. 

Yaffee, S.L. 1999. Three faces of ecosystem management. Conservation Biology. 

3(4): 713–725. 

Yoesting, D.R. 1981. Research utilization in decisionmaking. In: Napier, T.L. 

Outdoor recreation planning, perspectives and research. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/

Hunt Publishing: 13–18. 

Youngblood, A.; Bigler-Cole, H.; Fettig, C.; Fiedler, C.; Knapp, E.; Lehmkuhl, 

J.; Outcalt, K.; Skinner, C.; Stephens, S.; Waldrop, T. 2007. Making fire and 

fire surrogate science available: a summary of regional workshops with clients. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-727. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 59 p. 
75

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

Appendix: Interview Guide—Managers

CAPACITY FOR USING KNOWLEDGE IN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

The goal of our study is to explore the interaction between research and management within the USDA Forest Service. We are focusing on recreation management 

and research to identify models of interaction that have been effective, as well as 

barriers to effective knowledge exchange. 

A. BACKGROUND/CAPACITY ISSUES

A1. Tell me a little bit about your background and professional history. 

Where are you from? ______________________________________

What did you study in school? 

Degree Major School

What other training have you had (relevant to your current position)? 

______________________________________________________

How many years have you worked for the Forest Service? ____________

How many years have you worked in this [ranger district/forest]? _______

What other forests/districts have you worked in? Other positions held? 

Years National Forest Ranger District Positions

A2. Tell me about your job. 

How long have you held this position? __________________________

What are (were) your responsibilities? What is your job description? 

Has your job changed over time? How? 

Does your (current) job title accurately reflect your position description? ____ 

Why or why not? ___________________________________________

[If not] What title would you give yourself that better reflects what you do? 

B. RECREATION MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND APPROACHES

B1. What have emerged as the most significant recreation management 

issues that you have faced over the course of your career? 

What were the issues? Could you give me some examples?
76

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

How did these issues become issues? (Who/how decided it was an issue?) 

Have you noticed changes over time in how issues are identified?

B2. How did you initially respond to the issue/problem? (What was/is 

your approach for dealing with the issue?) 

Did you seek out information to help you? (If so, where did you look?)

Did you turn to other individuals or institutions (agencies) for help? 

[internal/external]

[If so,]What assistance did they provide? How did they help you? 

What else did you do to address the problem? 

Was this a typical approach for you to deal with an issue?

Did you feel you had appropriate and adequate skills and resources to address 

this issue? Why/why not/examples

Was this issue resolved or is it ongoing? How was the issue resolved? 

B3. Now I want to ask you about the role of research in resolving these 

recreation problems and issues. 

What were your information (research/knowledge) needs with regard to 

recreation management or planning? OR What are your needs with regard 

to recreation management or planning?

Have you had opportunities to communicate those needs? In what ways?

Does the Forest Service have structures or processes to encourage interaction 

between managers and researchers? (Does this take place on a formal or 

informal basis?) 

Have you worked with recreation researchers to address these issues? Give 

examples of how... [e.g., workshops, conferences, one-on-one, indirectly] 

Also who, context, setting

What types of interactions have been most effective for you?

Have there been studies, tools, or models that you have found to be useful? 

(in recreation management, planning, or decisionmaking) Why? 

What is the best way for you to access research/scientific information? 

What format of presentation has been most helpful to you? [e.g., technical 

reports, computer models, manuals, presentations, websites, workshops, videos, 

demonstration projects]

How important (or relevant?) is research information to recreation management 

decisions? (What other factors influence recreation actions and decisions?) 
77

Agency Capacity for Recreation Science and Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

C. RESEARCH-MANAGEMENT INTERACTIONS OVER TIME

C1. Have you had the opportunity to interact with scientists or researchers to 

address recreation issues during your career? 

If yes, proceed w/ C1a. If no, go to C2.

C1a. In what ways have you worked with researchers? How have you worked 

with researchers? NOTE: Only ask if not addressed above.

C1b. How would you characterize or evaluate your interactions with researchers? 

C1c. What aspects of these interactions did you find successful or 

productive? Examples Why? 

C1d. Have you observed any particular challenges in working with 

researchers? 

C1e. Have you observed any trends/changes over time in the 

interactions?

C2. How might you describe an “ideal interaction” between land 

managers and scientists in addressing resource management problems? 

C3. What factors prevent or enable this “ideal interaction” to occur? 

[e.g., institutional barriers, education, funding]

C4. Do you have a regular group of people with whom you interact to address 

resource management issues? Who?

D. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY FOR RECREATION MANAGEMENT 

Now let’s talk about your observations/thoughts on recreation management in the 

FS over time. 

D1. How has recreation (broadly) been viewed within the Forest Service over 

time? Have you noticed any changes in support for recreation? (personnel, 

funding, leadership, etc.)

D2. Have you noticed trends or changes in support for recreation research over 

time? 

D3. Have you observed any changes in training for recreation staff over time?

D4. Have you noticed any changes in responsibilities of recreation staff over 

time?

D5. Have you observed any changes in the capacity (ability) of researchers to 

convey or communicate relevant research findings to Forest Service resource 

managers? (e.g., workshops, conferences, trainings, reports)
78

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-757

D6. Have you observed any changes in the capacity (ability) of the Forest 

Service to communicate the needs of resource managers to researchers? 

D7. In your view, what should be the role of Forest Service research? 

E. WRAP-UP

E1. Is there anything else related to the interaction between recreation research 

and management that you would like to discuss? 

E2. Do you know of specific district or forest level researchers/managers with 

knowledge on this topic that you would recommend I interview? 

E3. Would you be willing to be contacted in the future about this research or 

participate in a workshop on this topic? 
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 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300