IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v127y2023ics0264837723000169.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cross-boundary cooperation in wildfire management during the custodial management period of the US Forest Service: A case study of the eastern Cascades of Oregon, USA, 1905–1945

Author

Listed:
  • Steen-Adams, Michelle M.
  • Charnley, Susan
  • Adams, Mark D.O.

Abstract

In the U.S., federal, tribal, state, local, and private land management entities seek to implement a wildfire management strategy that spans large spatial extents and multiple ownerships to achieve wildfire risk reduction and forest restoration. This strategy requires cross-boundary cooperation. Cooperative cross-boundary forest management is not new; yet little case study research has documented historical examples. This study provides insight into how potentially overlooked models of cross-boundary cooperation of the past may be applicable to renewed cross-boundary cooperation today. We examined cooperation during the custodial management period (1905–1945) of Forest Service history. This study identifies the governance institutions, partner roles, and practices that promoted the establishment and durability of cross-boundary cooperation under two governance models adopted by the Forest Service and partners. The models are: cooperative federalism, for partnering with state and private landowner local entities – forest protective associations (FPAs); and federal interagency cooperation, for partnering with the Bureau of Indian Affairs Forestry Division, historically responsible for managing tribal lands. Using case study methods, we examined two examples of each model from the eastern Cascades of Oregon, USA. Two governance characteristics promoted durable cooperation, regardless of model: (1) the development of a bundle of cooperation-focused institutions (cross-organizational policy alignment; headquarters-level cooperative policies, laws, and/ or interagency agreements; unit-level cooperative agreements) that linked multiple Forest Service administrative levels (agency headquarters, local unit) to those of partner entities; and (2) the performance of a diversity of partner roles— operating at both headquarters and local levels — that enabled management entities to offset capacity constraints. Several governance characteristics promoted cooperation in the model that engaged private landowners (cooperative federalism). These were: the state-granted authorities of a special purpose district, whereby self-organized FPAs garnered resources and developed and enforced cooperative practices that coordinated upward with state and federal policies; recognition by the state and Forest Service of authorized, local entities that represented private landowners (FPAs) as essential partners; an administrative structure for state transfer of federal funding to local entities, resulting in cost-sharing; and the state’s performance of the roles of cost-sharing administrator and liaison between Forest Service and local entities. We suggest that the more partners can integrate these features into cross-boundary wildfire management cooperation today, the better its chances of establishment and durability.

Suggested Citation

  • Steen-Adams, Michelle M. & Charnley, Susan & Adams, Mark D.O., 2023. "Cross-boundary cooperation in wildfire management during the custodial management period of the US Forest Service: A case study of the eastern Cascades of Oregon, USA, 1905–1945," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:127:y:2023:i:c:s0264837723000169
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106550
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837723000169
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106550?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kelly, Erin Clover & Charnley, Susan & Pixley, Jodie T., 2019. "Polycentric systems for wildfire governance in the Western United States," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    2. Cyphers, Laren A. & Schultz, Courtney A., 2019. "Policy design to support cross-boundary land management: The example of the Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 362-369.
    3. Crawford, Sue E. S. & Ostrom, Elinor, 1995. "A Grammar of Institutions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(3), pages 582-600, September.
    4. Abrams, Jesse, 2019. "The emergence of network governance in U.S. National Forest Administration: Causal factors and propositions for future research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Steen-Adams, Michelle M. & Abrams, Jesse B. & Huber-Stearns, Heidi R. & Moseley, Cassandra & Bone, Christopher, 2020. "Local-level emergence of network governance within the U.S. Forest Service: A case study of mountain pine beetle outbreak from Colorado, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    6. Cassandra Moseley & Susan Charnley, 2014. "Understanding micro-processes of institutionalization: stewardship contracting and national forest management," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(1), pages 69-98, March.
    7. Abrams, Jesse & Wollstein, Katherine & Davis, Emily Jane, 2018. "State lines, fire lines, and lines of authority: Rangeland fire management and bottom-up cooperative federalism," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 252-259.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Davis, Emily Jane & Hajjar, Reem & Charnley, Susan & Moseley, Cassandra & Wendel, Kendra & Jacobson, Meredith, 2020. "Community-based forestry on federal lands in the western United States: A synthesis and call for renewed research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    2. Steen-Adams, Michelle M. & Abrams, Jesse B. & Huber-Stearns, Heidi R. & Moseley, Cassandra & Bone, Christopher, 2020. "Local-level emergence of network governance within the U.S. Forest Service: A case study of mountain pine beetle outbreak from Colorado, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    3. Abrams, Jesse, 2019. "The emergence of network governance in U.S. National Forest Administration: Causal factors and propositions for future research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Paveglio, Travis B. & Stasiewicz, Amanda M. & Edgeley, Catrin M., 2021. "Understanding support for regulatory approaches to wildfire management and performance of property mitigations on private lands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    5. Frimpong Boamah, Emmanuel, 2018. "Constitutional economics of Ghana’s decentralization," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 256-267.
    6. David P Carter & Christopher M Weible & Saba N Siddiki & Xavier Basurto, 2016. "Integrating core concepts from the institutional analysis and development framework for the systematic analysis of policy designs: An illustration from the US National Organic Program regulation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 159-185, January.
    7. Saba Siddiki & Xavier Basurto & Christopher M. Weible, 2012. "Using the institutional grammar tool to understand regulatory compliance: The case of Colorado aquaculture," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 167-188, June.
    8. Adam Martin & Matias Petersen, 2019. "Poverty Alleviation as an Economic Problem," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 43(1), pages 205-221.
    9. Fernando Filgueiras & Pedro Palotti & Graziella G. Testa, 2023. "Complexing Governance Styles: Connecting Politics and Policy in Governance Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(1), pages 21582440231, March.
    10. Michiel A. Heldeweg, 2017. "Normative Alignment, Institutional Resilience and Shifts in Legal Governance of the Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-34, July.
    11. Christopher Weible & David Carter, 2015. "The composition of policy change: comparing Colorado’s 1977 and 2006 smoking bans," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(2), pages 207-231, June.
    12. Dunajevas Eugenijus & Skučienė Daiva, 2016. "Mandatory Pension System and Redistribution: The Comparative Analysis of Institutions in Baltic States," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 10(2), pages 16-29, December.
    13. Dimitrios Zikos, 2020. "Revisiting the Role of Institutions in Transformative Contexts: Institutional Change and Conflicts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-20, October.
    14. Elinor Ostrom, 2014. "Do institutions for collective action evolve?," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 3-30, April.
    15. Fadil Sahiti, 2021. "Institutions and entrepreneurial activity: a comparative analysis of Kosovo and other economies," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 10(1), pages 98-119, February.
    16. Charness, Gary & Schram, Arthur, 2012. "Social and Moral Norms in the Laboratory," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt6rv7x0tf, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    17. Antony S. Cheng & Lisa Dale, 2020. "Achieving Adaptive Governance of Forest Wildfire Risk Using Competitive Grants: Insights From the Colorado Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant Program," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(5), pages 657-686, September.
    18. Linhai Wu & Liwei Zhang & Yufeng Li, 2023. "Basis for fulfilling responsibilities, behavior, and professionalism of government agencies and effectiveness in public–public collaboration for food safety risk management," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, December.
    19. Schmidt, Robert J., 2019. "Do injunctive or descriptive social norms elicited using coordination games better explain social preferences?," Working Papers 0668, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    20. Shiva Noori & Gijsbert Korevaar & Andrea Ramirez Ramirez, 2020. "Institutional Lens upon Industrial Symbiosis Dynamics: The case of Persian Gulf Mining and Metal Industries Special Economic Zone," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-20, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:127:y:2023:i:c:s0264837723000169. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.