An Empirical Evaluation of the Impact of Collaboration on the Pace and Scale of National Forest Management in Idaho
Abstract It has been posited that US national forest administration is undergoing a governance transition characterized by an increase in the involvement and influence of non-state actors. One example of this new form of national forest governance is the use of multi-stakeholder collaborative effort...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Forest science 2021-02, Vol.67 (1), p.49-59 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 59 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 49 |
| container_title | Forest science |
| container_volume | 67 |
| creator | McIver, Chelsea Pennick Becker, Dennis R |
| description | Abstract
It has been posited that US national forest administration is undergoing a governance transition characterized by an increase in the involvement and influence of non-state actors. One example of this new form of national forest governance is the use of multi-stakeholder collaborative efforts for planning and implementing projects. This has raised normative and positive questions about the value and effectiveness of such efforts and how they compare with more traditional public involvement and planning processes. This study attempts to address the latter questions by analyzing project-level planning and implementation data while comparing collaborative and traditional projects on a suite of metrics related to pace, scale, complexity, and legal outcomes. We used administrative data from the USDA Forest Service to conduct a quantitative analysis of projects over a 14-year period. We found that collaboratively developed projects were larger and more complex than traditional projects and were associated with greater planning efficiency. This analysis responds to the need to systematically assess the impact of collaborative governance and contributes to existing theories of governance, organizational learning, and policy implementation. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1093/forsci/fxaa040 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2549300218</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/forsci/fxaa040</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2549300218</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c374t-65e99c12903b4b7df6357dcccecb6ff91aa773e4e17a7e7ec8afad1369cafc603</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkb1PwzAQxS0EEqWwMltigSHFjpM4HquqhUrlQwIktuji2DRVYgc7QfDf435MLEyn0_u90z09hC4pmVAi2K22zsv6Vn8DkIQcoREVLI8YZ_kxGhFC04gn4v0UnXm_IYTkjMQj5KcGz9uudrWEBs-_oBmgr63BVuN-rfCy7UD2221mmwZK6w6y2cnPIBUGU-GXYFdb7HGnh1sL65Tv8QMY-FCtMj2uDV5WsLbn6ERD49XFYY7R22L-OruPVk93y9l0FUnGkz7KUiWEpLEgrExKXumMpbySUipZZloLCsA5U4miHLjiSuagoaIsExK0zAgbo-v93c7ZzyE8U7S1lyrEMMoOvohFnqYxZYIG9OoPurGDCzEClSaCERLTPFCTPSWd9d4pXXSubsH9FJQU2w6KfQfFoYNguNkb7ND9x_4CDFaLfw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2549300218</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An Empirical Evaluation of the Impact of Collaboration on the Pace and Scale of National Forest Management in Idaho</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>McIver, Chelsea Pennick ; Becker, Dennis R</creator><creatorcontrib>McIver, Chelsea Pennick ; Becker, Dennis R</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract
It has been posited that US national forest administration is undergoing a governance transition characterized by an increase in the involvement and influence of non-state actors. One example of this new form of national forest governance is the use of multi-stakeholder collaborative efforts for planning and implementing projects. This has raised normative and positive questions about the value and effectiveness of such efforts and how they compare with more traditional public involvement and planning processes. This study attempts to address the latter questions by analyzing project-level planning and implementation data while comparing collaborative and traditional projects on a suite of metrics related to pace, scale, complexity, and legal outcomes. We used administrative data from the USDA Forest Service to conduct a quantitative analysis of projects over a 14-year period. We found that collaboratively developed projects were larger and more complex than traditional projects and were associated with greater planning efficiency. This analysis responds to the need to systematically assess the impact of collaborative governance and contributes to existing theories of governance, organizational learning, and policy implementation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0015-749X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-3738</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/forsci/fxaa040</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>US: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>citizen participation ; Collaboration ; Community ; Complexity ; Efficiency ; Empirical analysis ; Environmental restoration ; Forest management ; Forests ; governance ; Idaho ; issues and policy ; Land management ; Land use planning ; Managers ; National forests ; Performance measurement ; Public involvement ; Public lands ; quantitative analysis ; Questions ; USDA Forest Service</subject><ispartof>Forest science, 2021-02, Vol.67 (1), p.49-59</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of American Foresters. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. 2021</rights><rights>Copyright Oxford University Press Feb 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c374t-65e99c12903b4b7df6357dcccecb6ff91aa773e4e17a7e7ec8afad1369cafc603</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c374t-65e99c12903b4b7df6357dcccecb6ff91aa773e4e17a7e7ec8afad1369cafc603</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7241-4251 ; 0000-0003-4450-203X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1578,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>McIver, Chelsea Pennick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Becker, Dennis R</creatorcontrib><title>An Empirical Evaluation of the Impact of Collaboration on the Pace and Scale of National Forest Management in Idaho</title><title>Forest science</title><description>Abstract
It has been posited that US national forest administration is undergoing a governance transition characterized by an increase in the involvement and influence of non-state actors. One example of this new form of national forest governance is the use of multi-stakeholder collaborative efforts for planning and implementing projects. This has raised normative and positive questions about the value and effectiveness of such efforts and how they compare with more traditional public involvement and planning processes. This study attempts to address the latter questions by analyzing project-level planning and implementation data while comparing collaborative and traditional projects on a suite of metrics related to pace, scale, complexity, and legal outcomes. We used administrative data from the USDA Forest Service to conduct a quantitative analysis of projects over a 14-year period. We found that collaboratively developed projects were larger and more complex than traditional projects and were associated with greater planning efficiency. This analysis responds to the need to systematically assess the impact of collaborative governance and contributes to existing theories of governance, organizational learning, and policy implementation.</description><subject>citizen participation</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Community</subject><subject>Complexity</subject><subject>Efficiency</subject><subject>Empirical analysis</subject><subject>Environmental restoration</subject><subject>Forest management</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>governance</subject><subject>Idaho</subject><subject>issues and policy</subject><subject>Land management</subject><subject>Land use planning</subject><subject>Managers</subject><subject>National forests</subject><subject>Performance measurement</subject><subject>Public involvement</subject><subject>Public lands</subject><subject>quantitative analysis</subject><subject>Questions</subject><subject>USDA Forest Service</subject><issn>0015-749X</issn><issn>1938-3738</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkb1PwzAQxS0EEqWwMltigSHFjpM4HquqhUrlQwIktuji2DRVYgc7QfDf435MLEyn0_u90z09hC4pmVAi2K22zsv6Vn8DkIQcoREVLI8YZ_kxGhFC04gn4v0UnXm_IYTkjMQj5KcGz9uudrWEBs-_oBmgr63BVuN-rfCy7UD2221mmwZK6w6y2cnPIBUGU-GXYFdb7HGnh1sL65Tv8QMY-FCtMj2uDV5WsLbn6ERD49XFYY7R22L-OruPVk93y9l0FUnGkz7KUiWEpLEgrExKXumMpbySUipZZloLCsA5U4miHLjiSuagoaIsExK0zAgbo-v93c7ZzyE8U7S1lyrEMMoOvohFnqYxZYIG9OoPurGDCzEClSaCERLTPFCTPSWd9d4pXXSubsH9FJQU2w6KfQfFoYNguNkb7ND9x_4CDFaLfw</recordid><startdate>20210201</startdate><enddate>20210201</enddate><creator>McIver, Chelsea Pennick</creator><creator>Becker, Dennis R</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7241-4251</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4450-203X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210201</creationdate><title>An Empirical Evaluation of the Impact of Collaboration on the Pace and Scale of National Forest Management in Idaho</title><author>McIver, Chelsea Pennick ; Becker, Dennis R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c374t-65e99c12903b4b7df6357dcccecb6ff91aa773e4e17a7e7ec8afad1369cafc603</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>citizen participation</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Community</topic><topic>Complexity</topic><topic>Efficiency</topic><topic>Empirical analysis</topic><topic>Environmental restoration</topic><topic>Forest management</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>governance</topic><topic>Idaho</topic><topic>issues and policy</topic><topic>Land management</topic><topic>Land use planning</topic><topic>Managers</topic><topic>National forests</topic><topic>Performance measurement</topic><topic>Public involvement</topic><topic>Public lands</topic><topic>quantitative analysis</topic><topic>Questions</topic><topic>USDA Forest Service</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McIver, Chelsea Pennick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Becker, Dennis R</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><jtitle>Forest science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McIver, Chelsea Pennick</au><au>Becker, Dennis R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An Empirical Evaluation of the Impact of Collaboration on the Pace and Scale of National Forest Management in Idaho</atitle><jtitle>Forest science</jtitle><date>2021-02-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>67</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>49</spage><epage>59</epage><pages>49-59</pages><issn>0015-749X</issn><eissn>1938-3738</eissn><abstract>Abstract
It has been posited that US national forest administration is undergoing a governance transition characterized by an increase in the involvement and influence of non-state actors. One example of this new form of national forest governance is the use of multi-stakeholder collaborative efforts for planning and implementing projects. This has raised normative and positive questions about the value and effectiveness of such efforts and how they compare with more traditional public involvement and planning processes. This study attempts to address the latter questions by analyzing project-level planning and implementation data while comparing collaborative and traditional projects on a suite of metrics related to pace, scale, complexity, and legal outcomes. We used administrative data from the USDA Forest Service to conduct a quantitative analysis of projects over a 14-year period. We found that collaboratively developed projects were larger and more complex than traditional projects and were associated with greater planning efficiency. This analysis responds to the need to systematically assess the impact of collaborative governance and contributes to existing theories of governance, organizational learning, and policy implementation.</abstract><cop>US</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/forsci/fxaa040</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7241-4251</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4450-203X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0015-749X |
| ispartof | Forest science, 2021-02, Vol.67 (1), p.49-59 |
| issn | 0015-749X 1938-3738 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2549300218 |
| source | Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
| subjects | citizen participation Collaboration Community Complexity Efficiency Empirical analysis Environmental restoration Forest management Forests governance Idaho issues and policy Land management Land use planning Managers National forests Performance measurement Public involvement Public lands quantitative analysis Questions USDA Forest Service |
| title | An Empirical Evaluation of the Impact of Collaboration on the Pace and Scale of National Forest Management in Idaho |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T18%3A28%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20Empirical%20Evaluation%20of%20the%20Impact%20of%20Collaboration%20on%20the%20Pace%20and%20Scale%20of%20National%20Forest%20Management%20in%20Idaho&rft.jtitle=Forest%20science&rft.au=McIver,%20Chelsea%20Pennick&rft.date=2021-02-01&rft.volume=67&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=49&rft.epage=59&rft.pages=49-59&rft.issn=0015-749X&rft.eissn=1938-3738&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/forsci/fxaa040&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2549300218%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2549300218&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_oup_id=10.1093/forsci/fxaa040&rfr_iscdi=true |