By StevenE. Daniels,GreggB.Walker,MatthewS. Carroll,and KeithA. Blatner
burnedthrough
September.
In lateAugust,theWenatchee
Na-
ter and function.They alsoanuc•patedthatforestrestoration
activines
tional Forest launched a short-term
rehabilitation effort to thwart ero-
could be controversial, and that d•f-
ate
on
aSunday
inJuly
1994,
lightning
storms
movedeastward
across the Cascade Mountain
rangeof CentralWashington.
They
ferentviewsaboutfire recoveryand
followed in the wake of record-break-
sion,reduce
floodingrisk,andmain- foresthealthprovidedthe potenual
ingsummer
temperatures
andencoun- tain publicsafety.Someforestareas for outright conflict.There are a
that the staff
teredforestssufferingfrom yearsof wereclosedto the public.Severely numberof techniques
drought-like
conditions.
Theyignited burned hillsides were seeded and fer- might have employed:transacuve
manyfires 41 in theWenatchee
Na- tilized. Drainageswere shoredup planning(Friedmann1973), stratetional Forest alone.
with hay, rock, and check dams. gic perspectives
analysis(Dale and
The fires thrived becauseof a numBurnedtreeswere cut as part of a Lane 1995), searchconferencmg
ber of factors:unusuallydry forest contourfellingprocess
to reducesed- (Dieruer and Alvarez 1995), and so
conditions,
a largevolumeof natural imentation from overland flow. forth. KeyWenatchee
NationalForfuels,steepterrain,andstrongwinds Roadsweremodifiedto providefor estpersonnel
wereawareof the aucollaborative
learning
with gustsup to 50 milesperhour. manageable
waterflowsduringwin- thors'previous
When theybrokeout, fewlocalfire- tersnowmeltandspringrains.
applications
elsewhere
in the region,
and solicited their involvement.
fighting resourceswere available.
Much of the firefightingequipment Long-Term
Thispaperdescribes
thecollaboraForestHealth
based in the Pacific Northwest had
As theseemergency
rehabilitation tive learningapproachusedin the
beendeployed
to firesin the Rocky effortsproceeded,forest-leveland Wenatcheefire recoveryplanning
Mountains, which had already rangerdistrictmanagement
beganto The authorshavereportedotherapof thisapproach
elsewhere
claimed16 lives.Duringthefirstfew planfor thelong-termhealthof the plications
daysof the Cascade-region
fires,ex- damaged
forests.
They realizedthat (e.g., Daniels and Walker 1996;
USING COLLABORATIVE
LEARNINSI
treme fire behavior hindered contain-
rehabilitating
the forestsrequireda Walker and Daniels 1994a). Nocomprehensive
firerecovery
planning where, however, has collaborauve
effort. This effort needed to be
learningbeenappliedascomprehengroundedin ecosystem-based
man- sivelyasin thisinstance.
agement--combining
thebestavailablescientificknowledge
with thor- FireRecovery
Planningand
oughpublicinvolvement.
To drawon Collaborative
Learning
the best available science,the forest
(WenatcheeNational Forest1994).
Collaborative
learning
(CL) isa rein publicparticipauon
BytheendofJuly,foursignificant leadershipsupportedthe develop- centinnovation
fires were burningin the Chelan mentof a science
tovarious
teamorganized
by theorythathasbeenapplied
Countyportionof theWenatchee
Na- the Wenatchee Lab of the USDA For- community-or ecosystem-level
decitionalForest:
theTyeeCreekFire,the est Service Pacific Northwest Resionmaking
processes.
The technique
Rat Creek Fire (which was human- search Station. The science team
isgrounded
in thetheories
of conflict
caused),
theHatcheryCreekfire,and would incorporatedata from these management
andsystems
thinkingAs
the RoundMountainfire. Together andpreviousfiresto determineman- a result,it iswell suitedto dealwith (1)
thesefires burned more than 181,000
agementscenarios
thatcouldaddress the rancorous rhetoric and conflictual
health,sustainability, contextthat characterizes
contempoacres,
temporarily
closed
majorhigh- forestecosystem
ways,destroyed
37 homes,involved andbiodiversity.
rarynaturalresource
debate,
and(2) the
complexity
of landmanmorethan8,000firefighting
personnel The nationalforeststaff recog- fundamental
from 25 states,and costalmost70 milnizedthatthefirerecovery
publicin- agement
situations.
The application
of
lion dollarsto suppress
(Wenatchee volvement
scenario
offeredanoppor- collaborativelearningto the WeNationalForest1994).Althoughthe tunity for innovation.Primarily,the natcheeNationalForestfire recovery
situation (referredto hereafteras the
firesweregenerally
contained
by mid- Forest Service wanted to consider
for forestcharac- FireRecovery
August,some high-elevation
areas publicexpectations
Collaborative
Learrang
mentefforts.
Manyseasoned
firefightersencountered
unpredictable
andseverewildfireactivity;somereported
fires makingdramatic,rapid runs
downvalleys--consuming
morethan
81,000 acresin a two-hourperiod
4
August1996
IECO ERYPLANNIH$
Project,or FRCL project)proceeded
With thisknowledge
of theforest, Action 2--Collaborative
throughseveral
steps
between
October the fires, and affected communities, Learning
Workshops
Citizenworkshops
werekeycompo1994andApril 1995.
theauthors
designed
andconducted
a
Thefirstset
two-day "CollaborativeLearning nentsof theFRCLproject.
Action 1--Collaborative
workshops
waspartof theWeTrainingCourse"for 25 Wenatchee of these
NationalForest
employees.
FRCLpro- natchee
NationalForest's
"pre-project"
LearningTraining
depended
in parton their effort--they
generated
publicinputbeThe firststageof the FRCLpro- jectsuccess
ject emphasizededucationof both understanding
of specific
firereandacceptance
of the forethedevelopment
projects
thatwouldbesubject
to
the collaborative
learningfacilitators collaborative
learningprocess
itself, covery
and the Wenatcheepersonnelwho particularly
among
theproject-level
in- National EnvironmentalPolicyAct
were
(ID) teams.The train- (NEPA) review.The workshops
wouldbe involvedin planning.
The terdisciplinary
authorsspentconsiderable
time on ingcourse
to emphasize
bothscienincludedpresentations
on constructed
theforestshortlyafterthefires,meet- softsystems
methodology,
situation tificexpertise
andcitizeninvolvement.
ingrangerdistrictpersonnel,
making mapping,
andlearning.
It usedsmall The projectincludedfour full-day
presentations
aboutthe project,at- groupactivitiesto teachparticipants workshops:
threein ChelanCounty
tendingvariousmanagementteam aboutsomeof thestages
of thecollab- andonein thegreater
Seattle
area.
meetings,
andparticipating
in field orativelearning
framework.
TheseacWorkshop
design
began
withtheastripsinto theburnedareas.
Aspartof tivities involved ID team members
sumption
thatpeopleneeda common
a largerproject,the authorsalso fromspecific
rangerdistricts
working baseof knowledge
aboutfirerecovery
beforetheycaneffectively
partichelpedtrain andsupervise
graduate onderisionmaking
situations
thatwere issues
students who conducted more than
meaningful
to them,suchasAdaptive ipatein decisionmaking.
To thatend,
120 interviews in the fire-affected
werepreceded
by"issue
Management
Areaplanning,water- theworkshops
communities of Leavenworth, Enevenings"--meetings
at
shedassessment
planning,or recre- presentation
ation area construction conflict.
whichthepubliccouldlearnaboutistiat,andChelan,Washington.
Photo
byGrant
Gibbs
Journalof Forestry
5
coverysituation--includingenough
materialsothatall participants
could
seetheirinterests
andconcerns
represented. A contmon
behavior when
dealing•vithsituations
ascomplexas
firerecovery
isto choose
a singlecause
and attributeall of the negativefeaturesof the situation to it ("it's all due
to badfiresuppression
management";
"it's all dne to too nmch fuel material"
"theforest
will beharmedif salvaged").
A properlyconstructed
mind map
showsthat there are many possible
causes
andthusmanypossible
changes
After thesummer
firesof 1994, thecharredhillsof the P(Onatchee
Nat,onal that conld render intprovedforest
health.It presents
a "systems"
viewof
Forestwerele]}vulnerable
to erosion
andflooding.
the problemsituation,encouraging
suessuchasfireecology
andfire'sef- thatwerecomplete
opposites.
Butthere participantsto think systemically
about concerns, interests, needs, and
fectsonwildlife,fish,vegetation,
recre- was also a substantial set that indicated
ation, and tourism. Presenterscame a morenuanced
approach.
Forexample, situationimproventents.
Individualandsmallgrouptasks.
A
fromfederal
andstateagencies
andin- one individual's "best" was:
cludedother expertsfrom the local
participant-centered
active
learning
hnmcdiatc
salvage
of bnrncdtimtasksidentifyingthemesof concern
area. The subseqnent
day-longCL
bet done with state-of-the-art technoland interests--provided
a transition
workshops
emphasized
informaldisogy.Putmostpriorityon pinestands
cussion
morethanformalpresentation. and loggingon snowycover.Next,
from commonunderstanding
to acmoveinto fir standsfbr salvage.
Use
Theseworkshops
•vereopen to the
tion. This requiredthe participants
these
revenues
to regenerate
a newtbrpublic and were publicizedwidely.
to selectaspects
of the fire recovery
est and maintain forest health into the
situation, as shown on the mind
Theirgoalwasto identifypublicissues
f•tnre. Insect and disease control,
map, that concernedthem and/or
regarding
foresthealthandallowthe
chippingn,uncrchantable
material.
that they thought could be intparticipants
to developmanagement andblowingon thesoilformnlch.
improvements
that could be underproved.Fhisactivityparallels"issne
Another individual's "worst" case
identification"in traditional probtakenaspartof fire recovery
projects
(fig.l, p. 8). The participants
engaged scenario included:
lemsolvingand "focusingon interin a series
of activities
to promoteunests"in mutual gains negotiation
l remendot,
shnmanimpactonthe
(Fisherand Ury 1991). Participants
derstanding
of issues
andconcerns.
land, snch as more roads, soil COlnBest and u,orst views and situation
identifiedconcerns
individually,and
paction,andotherdamage;
spread
of
mapping.
In additionto the issueprethen
discnssed
them
initiallyin pairs,
,•oxions
weeds:lossof big treesand
and
then
in
groups
of 4 to 8. The
sentations,
two activelearningtasks
snags
andlogs(takescenturies
to rewere used to create a common underForestService
personnel
weredistribplace);disturbance
anddestrnction
of
wildlife.
standing
of thefirerecovery
situation.
utedthroughoutthe roontsothat at
Whenparticipants--both
citizens
and
leastonewasin eachgronp.
The "best" and "worst" futures exThe discussion then moved from
agency
personnel--arrived
at theissue
ercise
works
much
like
other
visionpresentation
evenings,
theyweregiven
concernsto specificimprovements.
blank cards and asked to write down
ing processes
to engagethe particitheirbestandworstimaginable
futures pantsin thinkingabontthosevalues
tbr the Wenatchee National Forest's
that they hopeto restoreor sustain,
burned areas.Workshopassistants aswellasthoseoutcomes
theywould
transferred these "bests" and "worsts"
preferto avoid.
to newsprint
paperanddisplayed
them
A second
methodforcreating
a colonwallsforallparticipants
tosee.This lectiveunderstanding
of fire recovery
activitydemonstrated
that mostpeo- wasto build"situation
maps"(alsoreple'sinterests
in thefirerecovery
situa- ferredto as"mindmaps"or "cognitive
tion arefar morecompatible
thanei- maps")
of theprocess.
The purpose
of
thertheirpriorexperience
or expecta- such an exercise is to create a visual
tionsmayhaveindicated.
representation
or "richpicture"(WilCertainly
thereweresomestatements son and Morren 1990) of the fire re6
August1996
Based on their identified concerns and
interests,
participants
generated
ideas
that they considered
to be desirable
and feasibleimprovements
to current
firerecovery
management.
Theydevelopedimprovements
individually
and
subsequently
discnssed
themin pairs
andlargergroups.
Participants
engaged
in somepreliminary
debateaboutthe
desirability
andfeasibility
of improvemerits,althoughtheyprimarilytalked
abouttheneedfor,anddetailsof, proposedimprovements.
fuelsreduction,reforestation,
public the Wenatchee National Forest chose to
safety,
andinnovative
forestproducts. divideits fire recovery
planninginto
CL discrete
CL workshops
producednumerous The rangerdistrictthatembraced
geographic
areas,
andprepare
statements of concerns/interests and
(EA) for
mostenthusiastically
organized
theim- EnvironmentalAssessments
more than 100 potentialimprove- provements
fromtheirworkshops
into eacharea.Eachof thefourrangerdisbythefirechose
different
mentsregarding
management
of the themesand developedsubsequent trictsaffected
fire recoverysituation.These con- NEPA alternatives based on them.
publicinvolvement
strategies
oncethe
cerns/interests
andimprovements
were
draftEAshadbeenreleased
forpublic
Colcomment.
Onlyonedistrict,theLeavreviewed
by theForestService
aspart Action 4--NEPA-Related
chose
to useCL workshops
to
ofactualfirerecovery
project
planning. laborative
Learning
Workshops enworth,
Thevarious
firerecovery
ID teams
deThe proposed
projectsdeveloped receive
publiccomment
at thispoint.
veloped
specific
short-andlong-term through
alternative
projects
forrestoring
theCL process
weresubject
to Various
projects--which
emphasized
trailreha- publicreviewandcomment
pursuant foresthealthwerethe focalpointof
bd•tation,sensitive
plantprotection, to NEPA requirements,
albeitnot in theseworkshops--participants
.were
wddlifehabitatrestoration,
salvage, thetypicalmanner.
The leadership
of askedto scrutinize
theman.dsuggest
Action3--ID TeamPlanning
The collaborative discussionsin the
Collaborative Learning Defined
Collaborative
learning(CL) isa frameworkdesigned
for natural resourcepolicydecisionmaking
andpublicinvolvement
m policydiscussions.
AstableI demonstrates,
it isa hybridof
work in two areasof mediationandnegotiation:
softsystems
methodology(SSM) and alternativedispute resolution
(ADR) (DanielsandWalker 1995).Thekeynotionsthat define collaborative
learningare:
ß redefining
the taskat handnot assolving
a problemor
resolving
a conflictbut asimproving
a situation;
ßviewingthe situationasa set of interrelatedsystems;
ß definingimprovement
asdesirableandfeasiblechange;
ßfocusing
on concerns
andinterestsratherthanpositions;
ß encouraging
interrelatedsystemsthinkingrather than
hnearthinking;
ß recognizing
that considerable
learning--aboutscience,
menttaskAs FloodandJackson
(I 99 I) observe,
SSM"isdoubly systemicsinceit promotesa systemiclearningprocess,
orchestrating
differentappreciations
of the situation,
whichis
never-ending,
andit alsointroducessystemsmodelsas part
of that learningprocess.
The systemiclearningprocessaims
to createa temporarilysharedculturein whichconflictscan
be accommodated
sothat actioncanbetaken"(p. 177-78).
From ADR: Values and Strategic Behaviors
While CL'semphasison learningand systemsthinking
comesfrom SSM,that areaof theorydoesnot dealwellwith
valuedifferences
andstrategicbehaviors
suchasnegotiation;
the ADR areasof mediationand negotiationdo.They also
serveasa secondfoundationfor collaborativelearning.Mediation,theintervention
of an impartialthird partyintoa dis-
•ssues,and value differences--will have to occur before im-
pute,dealswellwith significant
valuedifferences
(Carpenter
provementsare implemented;
and
ßfeaturingcommunication
andnegotiation
interactionas
the meansthroughwhichlearningandprogress
occur.
and Kennedy1988)."Valuedisputes,"
Moore observes,"are
extremelydifficultto resolvewhere there is no consensus
on appropriatebehavioror ultimategoals"(I 988, p. 256).
The parties'strategicbehaviorsare addressed
by incorporatingmethodsto promotecollaborative,
integrativenegotiation (Gray 1989;Lewickiet al. 1994).
From SSM: Learning and SystemsThinking
The originsof CL are in soft systemsmethodology.
Soft
systemsis an application
of theoreticalwork in systemsand
experientiallearning(Checklandand Scholes1990;Wilson
andMorren 1990),whichstresses
that learningandthinking
systemically
are criticalto planning,
makingdecisions
about,
and managingcomplex situations.These areas--systems
thinkingand learning--areonesthatADR, including
mediation,typically
disregard
or considerperipheral
to the settle-
Table 1. Collaborative learning as a hybrid.
Elements
SSM
ADR
Promoteslearning
Emphasizessystemsthinking
Dealswithvaluedifferences
Handlesstrategicbehaviors
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
High
Collaborative Learning and Communication
SuccessfulCL processessustain quality discourse,
which includesconstructive discussionof ideas,collabora-
rive argument,and interaction.Communicationcompetenceencompasses
theseelements,providinga dimension
that goesbeyondSSMandADR processes.
Regardless
of
the settingor groupsize,CL communication
competence
is fostered.Collaborativelearningencourages
competent
communication
and qualitydiscourseby implementing
interaction guidelines(e.g.,"groundrules"that value diversity) and by emphasizing
variousinterrelatedcommunication "skill"areas.These include:listening;
questioningand
clarification;feedback;modeling;socialcognition,suchas
teframing;dialogue;and collaborative argument skills
(Walker 1992;DanielsandWalker 1994).
Journal
of Forestry 7
I. Learningabout CL and the
fire recoverysituation
A. Issue presentations
Project
plans •
Subsequentmeetings
B.
Ground
rules
IV.Developingand discussing
improvements
A. Shortand longterm
B. Desirability
andfeasibility
II. Creatingcommonunderstanding
A. Best and worst futures
B. Situationmapping
III.
Generating
themes
of
concern
A. Tie to situationmap
B. Findingcommonand
divergentinterests
Figure1. Collaborative
learning
(CL)at thefire recovery
workshops.
should
beleftstanding
forbirds.
"I maydisagree
withwhatyouare
saying
andyoumightnotagreewith
me," shesaid, "but I think we should
wait to seewhat [ForestServicescien-
tist]RichEverettandhisgroup[the
Science
Team]comeup with before
we makeanyjudgments"
(Partridge
1995,p. 10).
Interestingly
enough,Gibbsand
Tankeindependently
approached
the
facilitators
to commend
theapproach
asa useful
opportunity,
andto suggest
thatit beemployed
in moresituations.
Some lessons can be learned from
desirable
andfeasible
changes.
Work- example,a columnappeared
in the
newsletter
of
the
local
Audubon
Socishopparticipants
"debated"
theproboththisuseof collaborative
learrang
jects,andthrough
theirconstructive
ar- etychapter
supporting
limitedsalvage in firerestoration
planning,
aswellasin
gument
examined
oneanother's
general loggingthatwaswrittenby someone otherapplications.
First,overthepast
goals
andspecific
ideas.
who, by his own admission,
had ar- several
years,we havefoundit more
AsthedraftEAswerebeingreleased, rivedat theworkshops
steadfastly
op- useful
to seek
progress
ratherthana full
thesalvage
harvests
ontheWenatchee posed
to anysalvage.
Otherbehaviors, solution.
Solutionconnotes
everyone
became
shielded
frommostlegalchal- however,
indicate
justhowdurable
po- beingsatisfied,
everyissuebeingrelengebecause
of sufficiency
language sitionalpoliticscanbe.Anotherwork- solved, and the matter settled for all
thatwaspartof thebudgetrescissionshopparticipantsubsequently
wrote time--noneof whichislikelyin many
legislation.
Asof thiswriting,fuels-re- anartidefora regional
environmentalcases.
Progress,
however,
isvirtually
alduction treatmentson 27,000 acres magazine
attributingthefiresto un- wayspossible,
andincremental
progress
(approximately
15% of the burned usually
hotweatherandarguing
that canleadto valuable
long-term
policies
area)havebeenconducted
through
sal- the Forest Service'sconcern with forest Second,
collaborative
processes
arenmvagesales.
A totalof 106mmbfwere health/fuels
management
wasmisdi- therquicknoreasy.
Theymustbuilda
harvested(another12 mmbf wereof- rected(Hoover1995)--eventhough foundation
of trust,procedural
agreeferedforsalebutdidnotsell).Equally he hadparticipated
in discussions
at ment, and mutual commitment that
important,otherfire recovery-relatedtheCL workshops
thatfocused
onthe moretraditional,legalistic
processes
projects
suchasnoxious
weedtreatment interplaybetween
fuels,climate,and oftenlack.But theveryelements
that
and prevention,
fuel breakconstruc- topography
in shaping
firebehavior. makecollaboration
challenging
also
tion, road obliteration, and wildlife
The CL workshops
engaged
long- make it powerful.Earnestlyunderhabitatimprovement
are underway time opponentsin discussions
that taken,collaborative
processes
do not
(Wenatchee
NationalForest1996).
weremoreconstructive
thantypically allowexclusion
of ideas
orgroups.
occur.
Often,however,
thosediffering
Finally,therearesomenotions
speperceptions
of the situationand of cificto collaborative
Evaluating
theCL Project
learning
thathave
Initialevaluations
frombothagency eachotherlimitedprogress.
The lg3- surprised
theseauthorswith theirefandnonagency
workshop
participants natchee
lg/brld
reportedhow onedis- fectiveness.
Situation
improvement
•sa
have been favorable and constructive.
agreement
in a Leavenworth
workshop comfortable
activityfor mostparuc•Citizensfelttheywerelistened
to and was handled:
pants;theyunderstand
its usefulness
thattheirknowledge
andinputwere
and
are
able
to
propose
improvements
Participants
wereencouraged
to
respected.Participantsvalued the
The participants'
abilitiesin systems
getintosmallgroups
anddiscuss
their
workshops'
emphases
on basiclearnthinkingcontinually
exceeded
expectaideaswithpeoplewhomayhavedif-
ing, constructive
communication,
and
generation
ofspecific
management
improvements.
Citizensappreciated
the
opportunityto interactindividually
andin groups
withForest
Service
personnel,
andForestService
employees
havewelcomed
theopportunity
toparticipatein CL workshops
ascitizens.
Someunexpectedly
positive
results
alsooccurred
fromtheworkshops.
For
8
August1996
feringviews.Longtime
Leavenworth
loggerGrantGibbssaidonethinghe
would most like to see as a result of
thefireswasmorelogging
of trees-especially
the burnedtrees--andthe
removal of debris from the forest floor.
Acrossthe table,Liz Tanke,a member
tions, and suchactivitiesbroaden their
graspof the situation.But whilewe
wouldhopethatrelationships
among
thevarious
parties
in sucha collaborative situation improve, the only
marked results to date have been •n-
paign,listenedintently.Afterwards,
creased
appreciation
for theeffortsof
ForestService
personnel.
A consider-
sheaskedGibbsmoreabouthisideas,
able measure of distrust between
but said she felt that more dead trees
groups
andstrategic
behavior
persists
of the Western Ancient Forest Cam-
Theattitudes
andinter-group
confl•ctsthat characterize
publicland
management
todaytook decades
to
form, and it will take more than a few
meetings
to chipawayat thosepositions. Collaborativelearning,and
other processes
like it, shouldbe
v•ewed
asincremental
steps
in thatdirecuon,not a freshwind blowing
across
thelandthatwillsweep
awayall
of the hardball tacticswe have seen in
recentyears.Whetheroneis satisfied
w•ththislevelofaccomplishment
isan
•nd•vidual reaction, of course.Given
the contentious situations in which
collaborative
learninghas beenapphed,theauthors
haveviewed
theWenatchee
effortasgenerating
progress
in
a sound
direction.
It certainly
created
a
series
of forumsin whichthegapsbetween citizensand scientists,and be-
tweenagencies
and interestgroups,
couldbeginto bebridged.
,u.
Literature Cited
CARPENTER,
S.,andW.J.D. KENNEDY.
1988.Man-
aging
publicdisputes:
A practical
guidetohandltngconflict
andreaching
agreements.
SanFran-
Unattended
Environmental
Monitoring
MadeEasy/
Constant
monitoring
ofrelative
humidityand temperaturein soiland
air isa vitalcomponentof any tree
growthandphysiology
research
project.
That'swhyStowAwayTM
Data Loggersarea
must. Economical,
reusableand compact,they
allowyou to accuratelycollectdata in thefield
whileworkingon otherprojects.Plus,youcan
programloggingintervals,retrievecollecteddata,
graphresults,and downloadcaptureddata to a wide
varietyof standardspreadsheet
programswhenusingthededicated
LogBooWSoftwareonyourPCorMacintoshcomputer.
TofindoutmoreabouttheStowAway
TM
DataLoggers
oranyof the
professional
productswecarry,ca//ourCatalogRequestDepartment
and askforyourFREEcopyof Catalog47. It'sournewestcatalog
featuring560 full-colorpagesof everything
you wantand morel.
cisco:
Jossey-Bass.
CHœCr,
t>a•D,P.,andJ.SCHOLœS.
1990.Softsystems
methodology
inaction.
NewYork:JohnWiley&
CATALOG
Sons.
(800)
DALE,A.E, andM.B. LANE.1995.Strategic
perspectives
analysis:
A procedure
forparticipatory
and politicalimpactassessment.
Society
and
Natural Resources
7:253-67
DANIELS,
S.E.,andG.B.WALKER.
1995.Searching
foreffective
natural
resources
policy:
Thespecial
challenges
ofecosystem
management.
In EcosystemManagement
ofNaturalResources
in theIntermountain
V&st,
ed.EH. Wagner.
Logan,UT:
UtahStateUniversity,
Collegeof NaturalRe-
REQUEST
360-7788
Fores.
Jl•
.........
M
O
R
•05 W•
E
T
•nkin
LINE
H
A
$•r•
N
T
H
E
N
A
M
E
ßJ•½k•on, •i%i%ippi •0•
I
M
P
L
I
E
•
S
ß/800) •47-$•8
03696
sources.
--.
1996.Collaborative
learning:
Improving
publicdeliberation
in ecosystem-based
management.Environmental
Impact
Assessment
Review.
In press.
DIEMER,J.A., and R.C. AtVA•,EZ.1995. Sustain-
ablecommunity,
sustainable
forestry:
A participatorymodel.
Journal
ofForestry
93(11):1O-14.
FISHER,
R., andW.URY.1991.Getting
toyes.2nd
ed NewYork:Penguin.
FLOOD,R.L., and M.C. JACKSON.
1991. Creative
D.M. Saunders.
1994.Negotiation.
2nded.Burr WILSON,
K., andG. MORREN.
1990.Systems
apRidge,IL: Irwin.
proaches
•r improvements
in agriculture
andreMOORI•,
C. 1986.Themediation
process.
SanFransource
management.
NewYork:MacMillan.
cisco:
Jossey-Bass.
PARTRIDGE,
M. 1995.Environmentalists,
loggers
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
talkfire-recovery.
lY&natchee
lY•r/d10 (Jan.15).
WALKER,
G.B. 1992.Towarda theoryof conflict
communication
competence.
Paperpresented
at
Steven
E. Danielsisassociate
proj•ssor,
problemsolving.'
•tal systems
intervention. the International Association for Conflict ManChichester,
UK:JohnWiley& Sons.
agement
Conference,
June,Minneapolis,
MN.
FREIDMANN,
J. 1973.Retracking
America:
A theory WALKER,G.B., and S.E. DANIELS.1994. Coflaboratirelearning
andthemanagement
of natural
oftransactive
planning.
GardenCity,NY:Anchor Press.
GRAY,B. 1989. Collaborating.
San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
HOOVER,
M. 1995.Weatherbig causeof Wenatchee
forestfires.Columbiana
5(2):32.
LEWICK1,
R.L., J.A. LITTERER,
J.W. MINTON,and
resource
disputes.
Paperpresented
at theannual
meeting
of theRuralSociological
Society,
August12, Portland,OR.
WENATCHEE
NATIONAL
FOREST.
1994.Fireinj3rmarionsheet.Wenatchee,WA: WenatcheeNational Forest.
Department
of ForestResources,
and
Gregg
B. •lker isassociate
proj•ssor
and
chair,Department
ofSpeech
Communication,
Oregon
StateUniversity,
Corvallis
97331; Matthew S. Carroll is assistant
proj•ssor
andKeithA. Blatner
isproj•ssor,
Department
ofNatural
Resource
Sciences,
•shingtonStateUniversity,
Pullman.
Journalof Forestry
9