Vol. 15 No. 30 (2024): Putting the Political in Its Place: Towards a Political Sociology of Sustainability
Articles

Cultivating Trust in the Face of Crisis: Science as Moderator in Collaborative Forest Management

PDF
  • Emily B. Campbell
Emily B. Campbell
Rhode Island College, USA
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/smp-15784

Published 2024-12-30

Keywords

  • citizen science,
  • collaborative forest management,
  • Collective action,
  • environmentalism,
  • political sociology

How to Cite

Campbell, E. B. (2024). Cultivating Trust in the Face of Crisis: Science as Moderator in Collaborative Forest Management. SocietàMutamentoPolitica, 15(30), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.36253/smp-15784

Copyright (c) 2024 Emily B. Campbell

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Funding data

Abstract

How is conflict over resources managed in the context of ecological, economic, and political crisis? Trust is noted by scholars as fundamental for collaborative forest management (CFM), a shared governance tool that brings together different stakeholders. This paper extends the literature on trust by foregrounding the use of science to lead decision making processes in the face of crisis. Through a case study of a CFM partnership in the American west, the analysis examines a once feuding group of political adversaries who decided to work together and “let the science lead.” The study examines how the partnership navigated economic crisis and historic wildfires against the backdrop of longstanding regional conflict termed the timber wars. The science-led governance model described includes science-led decision making, ongoing research on forest treatments, and communication of scientific findings to partners. The partnership’s approach, undergirded by relational and procedural trust, highlights the socio-political and relational dimensions of science-informed, sustainable resource management. The findings of this study have implications beyond CFM as they point to the importance of relational trust building in civic science. Generating buy-in and collaboration, especially among those with little to no formal science background, is especially pertinent given the polarization of science more broadly.

PDF

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Aikens C. M. and Greenspan R. L. (1988), «Ancient Lakeside Culture in the Northern Great Basin: Malheur Lake, Oregon», in Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 10,1: 32-61.
  2. Anderson S. E., Bart R. R., Kennedy M. C., MacDonald A. J., Moritz M. A., Plantinga A. J., Tague C. L. and Wibbenmeyer M. (2018), «The dangers of disaster-driven responses to climate change», in Nature Climate Change, 8, 8: 651-653, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0208-8.
  3. Antuma J., Esch B., Hall B., Munn E. and Sturges F. (2014), Restoring forests and communities: lessons from the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
  4. Billings M., Carroll M., Paveglio T. and Whitman K. (2021), «Us versus Them; Local Social Fragmentation and Its Potential Effects on Building Pathways to Adapting to Wildfire» in Fire 4(4): 96, https://doi.org/10.3390/fire4040096.
  5. Blue Mountain Forest Partners (2017), Bylaws of Blue Mountain Forest Partners, Oct. 19.
  6. Blue Mountain Forest Partners (2011), Operations Manual: Organizational Structure, Communication, and Decision Making Process, Jan.
  7. Blue Mountains Forest Partners (2023), Mission and History, Feb. 19.
  8. Blue Mountain Forest Partners (2023), Wildlife Habitat Zones of Agreement, May.
  9. Carroll M. S. (2019), Community and the Northwestern logger: Continuities and changes in the era of the spotted owl, Routledge, New York.
  10. Carroll M. S., McKetta C. W., Blatner K. A. and Schallau C. (1999), «A response to “Forty years of spotted owls? A longitudinal analysis of logging industry job losses», in Sociological Perspectives 42(2): 325-333, https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15614697.
  11. Cho J. (2017), Evaluating qualitative research, Oxford University Press, New York.
  12. Citrin J. and Stoker L. (2018), «Political Trust in a Cynical Age», in Annual Review of Political Science 21(1): 49-70, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050316-092550.
  13. Clucas R. A., Henkels M. and Steel B. (2005), Oregon politics and government: progressives versus conservative populists, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
  14. Colavito M. (2017), «The role of science in the collaborative forest restoration program», in Journal of Forestry 115(1): 34-42, DOI:10.5849/jof.15-142.
  15. Colfer C. J. Pierce, R. Prabhu, and Larson A. M. (2022), Adaptive collaborative management in forest landscapes: Villagers, bureaucrats and civil society, Taylor & Francis, New York.
  16. Crouch M. and McKenzie H. (2006), «The logic of small samples in interview-based qualitative research», in Social science information, 45,4: 483-499, https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018406069584.
  17. Davis E. J., Cerveny L. K., Ulrich D. R. and Nuss M. L. (2018), «Making and breaking trust in forest collaborative groups», in Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 40: 211-231.
  18. Dorsey L. G. (1995), «The frontier myth in presidential rhetoric: Theodore Roosevelt’s campaign for conservation», in Western Journal of Communication 59, 1: 1-19, https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319509374504.
  19. Esch B. E., Waltz A. E., Wasserman T. N. and Kalies E. L. (2018), «Using best available science information: determining best and available», in Journal of Forestry, 116, 5: 473-780.
  20. Fitzgerald D. (2002), Julia Butterfly Hill: Saving the Redwoods, Lerner Publications, Minneapolis.
  21. Flitcroft R. L., Cerveny L. K., Bormann B. T., Smith J. E., Asah S. T. and Fischer A. P. (2017), «The emergence of watershed and forest collaboratives», in D. H. Olson and B. Van Horne (eds), People, forests, and change: Lessons from the Pacific Northwest, Island Press, Washington, pp. 116-130.
  22. Gauchat G. (2012), «Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974-2010», in American Sociological Review, 77, 2: 167-187, https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412438225.
  23. Gauchat G. (2023), «The legitimacy of science» in Annual Review of Sociology, 49, 1: 263-279, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-030320-035037.
  24. Gimpel J. G., Lovin N., Moy B. and Reeves A. (2020), «The urban-rural gulf in American political behavior», in Political Behavior, 42, 4: 1343-1368, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09601-w.
  25. Gu Y. (2020), Rich History on the Malheaur, US Forest Service.
  26. Gunderson L. and Sickinger T. (2016), «Burned: Poor planning and tactical errors fueled a wildlife catastrophe» in The Oregonian, Aug. 16.
  27. Helmuth B., Gouhier T. C., Scyphers S. and Mocarski J. (2016), «Trust, tribalism and tweets: has political polarization made science a ‘wedge issue’?», in Climate Change Responses 3,1: 1-14.
  28. Hibbard M., Seltzer E., Weber B. and Emshoff B. (2011), Toward one Oregon: Rural-urban interdependence and the evolution of a state, Oregon State University Press, Portland.
  29. Johnston J. D., Olszewski J. H., Miller B. A., Schmidt M. R., Vernon M. J. and Ellsworth L. M. (2021) «Mechanical thinning without prescribed fire moderates wildfire behavior in an Eastern Oregon, USA ponderosa pine forest», in Forest Ecology and Management 501: 119674.
  30. Keenan R. J. (2015) «Climate change impacts and adaptation in forest management: a review», in Annals of forest science 72: 145-167, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-014-0446-5.
  31. Knoblauch H. (2005), «Focused ethnography», in Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6, 3, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0503440.
  32. Kozlowski A. C. (2022), «How conservatives lost confidence in science: the role of ideological alignment in political polarization», in Social Forces 100, 3: 1415-1443.
  33. Krause N. M., Brossard D., Scheufele D. A., Xenos M. A. and Franke K. (2019), «The polls—trends: Americans’ Trust in Science and Scientists», in Public Opinion Quarterly, 83,4: 817-836, https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz050.
  34. LaChapelle P.R. and McCool S. F. (2011), «The Role of Trust in Community Wildland Fire Protection Planning», in Society and Natural Resources, 25,4:1-15, https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.569855.
  35. Langston N. (1995), Forest dreams, forest nightmares: the paradox of old growth in the Inland West, University of Washington Press, Seattle.
  36. Langston N. (2003), Where land & water meet: A western landscape transformed, University of Washington Press, Seattle.
  37. Latif Q. S., Saab V. A., Haas J. R. and Dudley J. G. (2019), «FIRE-BIRD: A GIS-based toolset for applying habitat suitability models to inform land management planning», in United States Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
  38. Lee M. F. (1995), Earth first!: environmental apocalypse, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse.
  39. Levi M. and Stoker L. (2000), «Political Trust and Trustworthiness” in Annual Review of Political Science 3(1): 475-507.
  40. Mann M. and Schleifer C. (2020), «Love the science, hate the scientist: conservative identity protects belief in science and undermines trust in scientists», in Social Forces, 99,1: 305-332.
  41. McLain R. J., Wright K. and Cerveny L. (2014), «Who is at the Forest Restoration Table? Final Report on the Blue Mountains Forest Stewardship Network, Phase 1», in United States Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
  42. Nelson M. P., Gosnell H., Warren D. R., Batavia C., Betts M. G., Burton J. I., Davis E. J., Schulze M., Segura C., Friesen C. A. and Perakis S. S. (2017), «Enhancing public trust in federal forest management», in People, Forests, and Change: Lessons from the Pacific Northwest, Island Press, Washington, pp. 259-274.
  43. Petheram, R. J., Stephen P. and Gilmour D. (2004), «Collaborative forest management: a review», in Australian Forestry, 67, 2: 137-146.
  44. Reilly M. J., Zuspan A., Halofsky J. S., Raymond C., McEvoy A., Dye A. W., Donato D. C., Kim J. B., Potter B. E., Walker N., Davis R. J., Dunn C. J., Bell D. M., Gregory M. J., Johnston J. D., Harvey B. J., Halofsky J. E. and Kerns B. K. (2022), «Cascadia Burning: The historic, but not historically unprecedented, 2020 wildfires in the Pacific Northwest, USA», in Ecosphere, 13, 6: e4070.
  45. Sitton J. (2015), The Effects of Forestry Regulations on Rural Communities and the Urban-Rural Divide in Oregon, Claremont McKenna College, Claremont.
  46. Small M. L. (2009), «How many cases do I need?’ On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research», in Ethnography 10(1): 5-38, https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138108099586.
  47. Small M. L. and Calarco J. M. (2022), Qualitative literacy: A guide to evaluating ethnographic and interview research, University of California Press, Berkeley.
  48. Steen-Adams M. M., Charnley S., McLain R.J., Adams M. D. O. and Wendel K. L. (2019), «Traditional knowledge of fire use by the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs in the eastside Cascades of Oregon», in Forest Ecology and Management 450: 117405.
  49. Stern M. J. and Coleman K. J. (2014), «The multidimensionality of trust: Applications in collaborative natural resource management», in Society & Natural Resources 28(2): 117-132.
  50. US Census. (2020), «Grant Country, Oregon», in 2020 Decennial Census.
  51. Vindrola-Padros C. (2021), Rapid ethnographies: A practical guide, Cambridge University Press, New York.
  52. Walker P. A. and Hurley P. T. (2011), Planning paradise: Politics and visioning of land use in Oregon, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
  53. Watts A. (2019), «Of Woodpeckers and Harvests: Finding Compatibility Between Habitat and Salvage Logging» in United States Department of Agriculture Rocky Mountain Research Station, November/December (38).
  54. Wilson D. H. (2022), Northern Paiutes of the Malheur: High Desert Reckoning in Oregon Country, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
  55. Yin R. K. (2009), Case study research: Design and methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
  56. Zapp M. (2022), «The legitimacy of science and the populist backlash: Cross-national and longitudinal trends and determinants of attitudes towards science», in Public Understanding of Science 31(7): 885-902, https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221093897.