LEARNING FROM THE LAND n SOCIAL SCIENCES
Using Agency Permit Data to Describe
Community/Resource Linkages in
Utah’s Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument
Robert J. Lilieholm
School of Forest Resources
University of Maine
249 Nutting Hall
Orono, ME 04469-5755
Phone: (207) 581-2896
Fax: (207) 581-2875
robert.lilieholm@maine.edu
Mekbeb E. Tessema
Department of Environment
and Society
Utah State University
Logan, UT
Dale J. Blahna
Pacific Northwest Research
Station
USDA Forest Service
Seattle, WA
ABSTRACT
Rural communities in the West are often highly dependent upon
surrounding public lands for a wide range of natural resource-based
goods, services, and activities. When it comes to planning and
management, public land management agencies are mandated to
consider the welfare of these communities, but oftentimes are limited
in their ability to fully describe and understand the socioeconomic
impacts of community/resource linkages at the local or sub-county
level. This paper demonstrates how readily available agency permit
data collected by the Bureau of Land Management can be used to help
describe how communities surrounding Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument depend upon and use Monument resources.
We also offer guidelines for improving the quality and usefulness of
agency permit data.
Keywords: economics, grazing, land use, public lands, resource
dependence, social impact assessment, spatial data, sustainability
Linda E. Kruger
Pacific Northwest Research
Station
USDA Forest Service
Juneau, AK
Introduction
Resource Dependence
in Rural Communities
M
any rural communities are dependent
upon nearby public lands for a variety
of natural resource-based goods and
services. These range from market-based resources
like forest products, minerals, and livestock forage, to recreational opportunities and a host of
environmental services (Flora and Flora 2004).
Community/resource linkages are particularly
important in many areas of the rural West, where
local economic dependence on public lands is
particularly acute due to the limited availability of
private lands, an arid and marginally-productive
resource base, limited economic diversification,
and high levels of social and economic isolation
(Gray et al. 2001).
Since their establishment in the first half of the
20th Century, federal land management agencies
have considered the effects of management on the
long-term health and sustainability of the natural
447
Lilieholm, Tessema, Blahna, and Kruger
SOCIAL SCIENCES n LEARNING FROM THE LAND
resources under their charge. More recently, agencies like the USDI Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and USDA Forest Service operate under
a number of mandates to also consider the effects
of management on the socioeconomic well-being
of nearby communities. Examples include the
National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the
Resources Planning Act (1974), the National
Forest Management Act (1976), and the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act (1976). These
laws require socioeconomic assessments of nearby
communities, as well as an analysis of the social
effects of agency decisions (Dana and Fairfax
1980).
Despite these mandates, there is little agency
guidance as to the types of data and analytic processes that should be used to generate managerially useful social information. Also absent are guidelines describing the types of data that can serve a
useful role in the on-going monitoring needed to
support adaptive management practices (Geisler
1993, Endter-Wada et al. 1998, Stankey et al.
2003, Keough and Blahna 2006). As a result, while
public land management agencies have historically
done a thorough job of considering the biological
and physical impacts of alternative management
scenarios, most agencies lag far behind in their
analysis and use of social science data. This is
particularly true when it comes to understanding
the impacts of resource planning decisions on local
communities. For example, most socioeconomic
analyses of community impacts rely on countylevel data and economic input-output models like
IMPLAN that, due to data aggregation and disclosure requirements, may fail to accurately describe
community/resource linkages at the local or subcounty level (Sullivan 1997, Minnesota IMPLAN
Group Inc. 2004).
Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument
Utah’s 1.9-million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM or Monument) was established in 1996 by an Executive
Order issued by President Bill Clinton (Bureau
of Land Management 1999). The Monument lies
within Garfield and Kane Counties and is sur-
Lilieholm, Tessema, Blahna, and Kruger
rounded by 13 small, resource-dependent communities (Table 1). These communities have relied
on extracting natural resources from surrounding
lands for nearly 150 years. Historically, these
communities have been heavily dependent upon
livestock grazing (currently cattle but in past years
sheep as well), and the cutting of woodland trees
for firewood, posts, and poles (Sullivan 1997). Private lands with access to irrigation water provided
an agricultural base for local communities, as well
as winter feed for livestock.
In addition to these traditional land uses,
tourism has been a long-standing yet oftentimes
overlooked economic driver for local communities
(Sullivan 1997). Indeed, the Grand Canyon was
first protected in 1908 as a national monument,
followed by Zion (1909), Bryce Canyon (1923),
and Capitol Reef (1937). In the 1920s and 1930s, a
popular trip by motor coach took tourists through
many of these landscapes and provided jobs and
income for local residents and businesses.
When GSENM was created in 1996, local
opposition was intense, and animosities have
lingered due to concerns over the potential loss
of traditional livelihoods like cattle grazing, as
well as diminished prospects for future economic
development through oil and gas leasing and coal
mining on the Monument’s Kaiparowits Plateau.
These concerns are particularly acute given that
less than 5% of the region’s land base is privately
owned, and limited forage production requires extensive areas to provide even a modest economic
return from livestock grazing.
Today, recreation and tourism have become
the major economic drivers in the region, although
traditional extractive uses continue to dominate
the psyche of most locals. Indeed, over the last 25
years, job growth in Garfield and Kane Counties’
service sector has far outpaced growth in other
sectors, especially traditional resource sectors like
mining, agriculture, and forest products (Figure 1).
At the same time, inflation-adjusted wages have
been falling since at least the early 1980s, and
incomes expressed as a percent of the overall state
average have steadily declined to the point that
resident income is now one-third lower than the
448
LEARNING FROM THE LAND n SOCIAL SCIENCES
Community
Bigwater, UT
Date
Settled
1950s
2005 Population
(estimate)
Economy
415
Originally named Glen Canyon City, this small community with
limited services began as a construction camp for workers building Glen Canyon Dam. Bigwater recently attracted the attention
of a large, international resort developer due to its location near
GSENM and Lake Powell. The town also hosts one of GSENM’s five
visitor centers.
Boulder, UT
1889
179
Small, isolated community dependent upon natural resources.
Limited retail and lodging services. Boulder is attracting retirees
and amenity seekers due to its scenic beauty and location near
GSENM.
Cannonville, UT
1870s
135
Small, isolated community dependent upon natural resources.
Very limited retail services. Home to one of GSENM’s visitor
centers.
744
Mid-level retail services based on tourism and natural resources.
Escalante has begun to attract amenity-based businesses and residents due to its scenic beauty and location near GSENM. The town
is also home to GSENM’s main visitor center.
Escalante, UT
1875
Fredonia, AZ
1885
1,051
Some tourism potential due to Fredonia’s location on the highway
to the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. The closure of Kaibab Forest Products’ sawmill in the mid-1990s resulted in significant job
losses and socioeconomic distress.
Glendale, UT
1871
342
Small, isolated community dependent upon natural resources. No
retail services.
Henrieville, UT
1877
144
Small, isolated community dependent upon natural resources. No
retail services.
Kane County seat. Relatively well developed economic base due to
tourism, travel along US Highway 89, and its role as a local service
center. Kanab hosts GSENM’s Headquarters, as well as one of its
visitor centers.
Kanab, UT
1870
3,516
Mount Carmel, UT
(Originally Winsor)
1864
116
Small rural community dependent upon natural resources and
tourism from nearby Zion National Park.
Orderville, UT
1870
586
Small, isolated community dependent upon natural resources and
tourism. Limited retail services.
Page, AZ
1950s
6,794
Located in Arizona’s Coconino County, Page’s relatively large and
well-diversified economy is based on transportation services,
recreation and tourism, and nearby Lake Powell and Glen Canyon
Dam.
Panguitch, UT
1864
1,477
Garfield County seat. Government offices, mid-sized economic
base serving transportation, tourism, and natural resource-based
industries.
Gateway to Bryce Canyon National Park. Most developed economy
in Bryce Valley, but still small even by regional standards. Mostly
Tropic, UT
1892
463
tourism based, with several motels, restaurants, and bed and
breakfasts.
Table 1. Socioeconomic profiles of communities located near GSENM (U.S. Census).
state’s average. Moreover, unemployment is twice
Utah’s average of about 4%, and can rise to nearly
25% in tourism’s off-season.
Given local attitudes and the dependence of
nearby communities on public lands, any change
in land ownership, agency oversight, or management policy has the potential to impact the welfare
of local communities. For example, policy changes
in the late 1980s led to large declines in timber
harvest levels on national forests across the West –
with severe social and economic consequences for
449
Lilieholm, Tessema, Blahna, and Kruger
SOCIAL SCIENCES n LEARNING FROM THE LAND
Figure 1. Employment by sector for Garfield County, 1950-2000 (FIRE includes Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate; TCPU includes Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities) (U.S. Census 2000).
many timber-dependent communities (Kusel 2001,
Baker and Kusel 2003). Current efforts by the
BLM to address concerns over rangeland health
and the sustainability of grazing practices stoke
fears of a similar fate in many ranching communities. Indeed, the widespread local resistance to
environmental protection efforts in the rural West
is largely driven by concerns over the potential
loss of access to natural resources. And while
the Monument’s establishment in 1996 retained
lands under BLM’s multiple use oversight, it also
expanded the region’s primary focus from grazing
and mining, to the protection of unique scientific
and historical resources to be managed for current
and future generations.
Given the high levels of interdependence
between public lands and surrounding communities, it is important that public land management
agencies understand local community/resource
linkages. Such an understanding can help agencies: (1) solicit public input in the design of
management alternatives; (2) assess the impacts of
proposed management or policy changes; (3) design mitigation practices in the event that proposed
changes are likely to present challenges for nearby
communities; and (4) provide baseline data and a
Lilieholm, Tessema, Blahna, and Kruger
rationale for the design of socioeconomic monitoring efforts.
In this paper we demonstrate how existing
secondary data like agency-issued permit information can be used to spatially describe community/
resource linkages in the GSENM region – here
defined as Kane and Garfield Counties, the Monument, and the dozen or so small rural communities
that share this landscape. The approach reveals a
host of advantages. Foremost is the general availability and low cost of permit data. Also important
is the community-level detail – a level of resolution often lacking in state and federal socioeconomic data. We conclude with some observations
on the limitations of permit data, and on how
agency data collection efforts might be enhanced
to further the goal of improving the identification,
understanding, and measurement of community/
resource linkages.
Methodology
Community/resource linkages and dependencies are many and complex (see Kruger 2003), and
450
LEARNING FROM THE LAND n SOCIAL SCIENCES
several descriptive typologies have been proposed
in the literature. Building on the work of Beckley
(2003), McCool (2003) developed a model of
how communities are “embedded” within broader
social and biophysical environments. Identifying specific links between a community and the
broader environment is important for understanding how natural, social, or institutional changes
may influence a community. At this broad level,
McCool (2003) hypothesized three general types
of community/environment links: (1) instrumental, (2) cultural-spiritual, and (3) ecological.
Instrumental links are the more direct or tangible
“products” we obtain from the environment for
economic, subsistence, or recreational value (McCool 2003). Cultural-spiritual links are the symbolic values provided by the environment, such
as Native American sacred sites and other special
places where symbolically important activities or
connections to a place occur. Ecological linkages
result from the ability of the natural environment
to produce resources essential for survival, such as
clean air and water.
In this paper, we focus on instrumental or resource use linkages as reflected by permits issued
to the public by agency district offices. Federal
land management agencies issue permits for a
variety of uses. These permits – for which the user
is typically charged a nominal fee – ensure that the
permit-holder is aware of regulations. Permits also
enable the agency to monitor the location of activity, and method and intensity of use. Agency permit
data have the potential to supplement traditional
socioeconomic data sources used to describe community/resource linkages. For example, traditional
data sources like the Economic Research Service,
The U.S. Census Bureau, and other data gathered
and reported by various state, county, and federal
agencies generally present data at the county level,
and may thus miss important sub-county community characteristics due to aggregation (Sullivan
1997, Blahna et al. 2003). Agency permit data, on
the other hand, are typically community-specific
with respect to the permittee or user, and oftentimes location-specific with respect to the use or
activity.
Endter-Wada and Blahna (2004) presented
a different type of community/resource linkage
framework. Working from the perspective that
federal land management agencies are mandated
to provide the public with many types of community/resource linkage opportunities, they identified
five categories of community “linkages to public
lands” based on agency legal and policy requirements: (1) tribal linkages, (2) resource use linkages, (3) interest linkages, (4) neighboring land
linkages, and (5) decision-making linkages.
In GSENM, permits are required for a wide
range of uses (e.g., grazing, certain recreational
activities, and the cutting of trees for firewood,
poles, and fence posts). These permits are readily
available for analysis and mapping on a regular basis, and can be used to evaluate the social
impacts of agency plans and management decisions. Permit data collected by Monument staff
are housed at the various visitor centers, as well as
GSENM Headquarters in Kanab, Utah. Some data
are available on the GSENM website. The permit
activities included in this study are described below. In this exploratory paper, we spatially express
these data based on the permit holder’s community
of residence in order to depict simple and readily
available measures of the relationship between
communities, resources, and the Monument.
Of special relevance here are resource use
linkages, which are essentially a subset of McCool’s instrumental links. They are based on laws
providing for public access rights to the land and
using or collecting resources for personal or commercial benefit, such as grazing, camping, hunting
and guiding, and collecting firewood and special
forest products. While Endter-Wada and Blahna’s
resource use linkage category also includes “open
use” linkages that do not require permits (e.g.,
enjoying scenery, picnicking, and hiking) and illegal uses (e.g., poaching), the data for this study
represent only legal and permitted resource use
linkages.
Results
Grazing
Livestock grazing has been a dominant use on
the lands within today’s GSENM for nearly 150
years. While the number of animal unit months
451
Lilieholm, Tessema, Blahna, and Kruger
SOCIAL SCIENCES n LEARNING FROM THE LAND
Figure 2. Distribution of GSENM grazing permittees, 2006.
(AUMs) and livestock have varied over the years,
the Monument currently has authorized 76,000
AUMs. The 75 geographically contiguous grazing
allotments cover virtually all of the Monument’s
1.9 million acres. Figure 2 shows the number of
permittees in communities surrounding the Monument (note that permits held by permittees residing beyond the immediate region were assigned
to the GSENM community that serves as the base
of ranching operations as determined by BLM
personnel). Kanab and Cannonville have the largest number of permittees (38 and 37, respectively),
followed by Escalante and Boulder.
When these data are adjusted by a community’s population, however, they convey a different
impression. For example, Figure 3 shows that on a
per-1,000 resident basis, Cannonville is by far the
most dependent on grazing permits, followed by
Boulder and Escalante. In fact, Kanab – with the
most permittees – has the lowest level of dependence when adjusted by the community’s larger
population. Figures 4 and 5 show the number of
allotments and authorized AUMs, respectively, for
each community. Note that while most permittees
reside in Kanab and Cannonville (Figure 2), the
majority of AUMs (and hence cattle) are associated with ranching operations based in Escalante
(Figure 5). As described below, these different
Lilieholm, Tessema, Blahna, and Kruger
metrics can be used to provide a range of useful
information about community/grazing linkages on
the Monument.
Special Recreation Permits
Recreational visitation to the Monument and
surrounding areas has increased over the years.
Figure 6 shows visitation to southern Utah’s national parks between 1981 and 2005. Visitation at
the Monument’s five visitors’ centers is shown in
Figure 7. GSENM issues Special Recreation Permits (SRP) to local businesses engaged in recreation-related commercial use on Monument lands.
Examples include guiding services, educational
programs, hunting, and photography. On the Monument, the number of SRPs has steadily increased
over time, suggesting that the recreational services
economy associated with the Monument is gaining in strength, size, and diversity. Figure 8 shows
the spatial location of these SRPs. As shown in
the Figure, businesses serving recreational needs
are concentrated in Kanab. Also, SRPs in smaller
communities suggest that even though fewer businesses operate from these locations, their contribution to local economic activity is likely to be
disproportional due to these communities’ smaller,
less-diverse economies.
452
LEARNING FROM THE LAND n SOCIAL SCIENCES
Figure 3. Distribution of GSENM grazing permittees, 2006 (permits per 1,000
residents).
Forest Products
Forest products-related activities on GSENM
that require a permit include the cutting of firewood, poles, and fenceposts. Given the Monument’s aridity, most of these activities take place
in the western Grand Staircase region of GSENM,
where pinion pine (Pinus edulis) and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) woodlands occupy
the more mesic, higher elevation sites. And while
these woodlands have supplied forest products
to local residents for generations, Figures 9 and
10 reveal the relatively low level of use based on
issued permits. Given this low use level, a better
representation of this community linkage might
be portrayed by aggregating several years’ data,
although this might mask any trends in use due to
changes in local demand, resource availability, or
BLM policy. Alternatively, these data could be displayed each year through time to reveal temporal
trends in this community/resource linkage.
Discussion
The spatial depiction of agency permit data
presented here provides a unique view of community/resource use that may not be readily apparent
through commonly used agency practices. And as
demonstrated above, accessing, summarizing, and
depicting permit data is relatively simple, while
the spatial depictions that emerge are a useful tool
in understanding how local community/resource
linkages and dependence may vary across time,
communities, and geographic location.
The utility of spatially depicting permit data
can be illustrated through a number of examples.
For instance, consider the case where changes to
grazing practices are being evaluated. The grazing permit data described above are rich in detail,
with the numbers of permittees, allotments, and
AUMs varying greatly by community. Prospective
changes may affect these attributes differently, and
hence lead to varying impacts on different communities. For example, efforts to reach permittees would have the greatest impact in Kanab and
Cannonville, where the bulk of local permittees
reside (Figure 2). However, if the geographic area
impacted by grazing was of interest to the Agency,
then efforts would focus on the town of Escalante,
where a relatively small number of permittees control a majority of GSENM’s AUMs (Figure 5).
Agency permit data can supplement more
commonly used socioeconomic data to better
453
Lilieholm, Tessema, Blahna, and Kruger
SOCIAL SCIENCES n LEARNING FROM THE LAND
Figure 4. Distribution of GSENM grazing allotments, 2006.
Figure 5. Distribution of GSENM authorized AUMs, 2006.
anticipate local impacts. For example, changes
that adversely affect the profitability of ranching
operations are more likely to have greater effect in
small, isolated communities like Boulder and Cannonville, instead of Kanab – the county seat with a
larger and more diversified economic base.
Lilieholm, Tessema, Blahna, and Kruger
It is also important to recognize that the permit
data described here represents a subset of the data
that may be available for a particular area. For
example, we did not consider hunting and fishing permits, back country use permits issued to
individual campers, water rights, easements and
right-of-ways, or permits to collect geological,
454
LEARNING FROM THE LAND n SOCIAL SCIENCES
Figure 6. Visitation to Utah national parks, 1981-2005.
Figure 7. Visitation to GSENM visitor centers, 1996-2006.
biological, or paleontological specimens. Spatially
depicting each of these uses would create additional sets of community/resource linkages that
might have relevance to various aspects of Monument management. These linkages would also
likely reveal a much larger sphere of influence by
spatially locating permittees from distant counties,
communities, and states.
Agency employment, while not considered
here, is another important linkage between public lands and the economic health of nearby rural
communities. For example, federal jobs associated
with public lands may be seasonal or year-round,
and often require advanced levels of education
that attract highly skilled individuals and their
families to rural areas. Year-round jobs provide
steady income, relatively high pay, and health
and retirement benefits – highly desirable features
increasingly missing from private sector jobs and
oftentimes altogether absent from rural labor markets. Such benefits are increasingly important in
Garfield and Kane Counties, where average local
wages have steadily fallen as compared to state
averages over the last 25 years.
Unfortunately, the widespread lack of recognition by agency personnel of the potential value
455
Lilieholm, Tessema, Blahna, and Kruger
SOCIAL SCIENCES n LEARNING FROM THE LAND
Figure 8. Distribution of GSENM Special Recreation Permits, FY96-97 through
FY04-05.
Figure 9. Distribution of GSENM post and pole permits, 2006.
of permit data for conducting community social
assessments may inadvertently lead to incomplete
recording of forms, poor record-keeping, and a
lack of standardization that might limit subsequent
use and application. Recent efforts to standardize
permit data through the USDA Forest Service’s
INFRA database, Timber Information Manager
(TIM), and Special Uses Database System (SUDS)
are important first-steps in this direction. In adLilieholm, Tessema, Blahna, and Kruger
dition, ensuring that permits include information
about location of permitted use, amount of resources used, and economic values would greatly
enhance the usefulness of the data collected. For
example, some agency permits for firewood cutting include the number of cords and economic
value of the wood being cut, but many others do
not.
456
LEARNING FROM THE LAND n SOCIAL SCIENCES
Figure 10. Distribution of GSENM fuelwood permits, 2006.
We also suggest coordination between land
management agencies to standardize both the
types of information collected, as well as the
databases where this information is housed. This
would allow for a more complete identification of
community linkages to public lands. For example,
in our study region some residents of Boulder cut
firewood on the Dixie National Forest, some on
the Monument, and some on both. Moreover, the
Dixie National Forest includes permits for campground use and Christmas tree cutting, while the
Monument does not. Ecosystem-based management necessitates interagency coordination, and
the standardization of permit requirements across
agencies would be a simple and useful step toward
realizing this goal.
As recognition of the value of permit data
grows, we are hopeful that the INFRA, TIM and
SUDS systems might be expanded to include other
agencies. Also needed are increased efforts to
ensure data integrity and availability, including the
mapping of temporal data for determining trends
in use. Better staff training concerning the value
and use of such data is also an important prerequisite in elevating permit data to the same level of
importance as biophysical data for land management planning and decision making.
Conclusions
Permit data collected by public land management agencies contain a wealth of information regarding local community/resource linkages. These
data are oftentimes unused in agency planning
efforts, yet represent a readily available, low-cost
method of describing and understanding how rural
communities use and interact with nearby public
lands. The growing list of challenges and competing uses facing our public lands suggest the need
for a better understanding of community/resource
uses and linkages. Meeting these challenges in
an environment of diminished agency resources
requires that public land managers fully utilize
existing data, staff, and resources. The exploratory
approach described here using agency permit data
represents an important step toward reaching that
goal. We hope that in time, these data will begin to
realize their full potential in meeting public land
management policy objectives by serving a more
active role in describing, analyzing, and assessing the social and economic impacts of alternative
land use policies.
457
Lilieholm, Tessema, Blahna, and Kruger
SOCIAL SCIENCES n LEARNING FROM THE LAND
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express thanks to Marietta
Eaton, Larry Crutchfield, and several anonymous
reviewers for assistance with this project. We
would also like to acknowledge financial support
from the Maine Sustainable Solutions Initiative
(National Science Foundation Grant No. EPS0904155), and the Human and Natural Resource
Interactions Program of the Forest Service Pacific
Northwest Research Station.
References
Baker, M., and J. Kusel. 2003. Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the
Past, Crafting the Future. Washington, DC:
Island Press. 247 pages.
Beckley, T.M. 2003. The relative importance of
sociocultural and ecological factors in attachment to place. Pages 105-126 in L. Kruger,
tech. ed., Understanding Community-Forest
Relations. USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-566.
Blahna, D.J., D. Carr, and P. Jakes. 2003. Using
social community as a measurement unit in
conservation planning and ecosystem management. Pages 59-80 in L. Kruger, tech. ed.,
Understanding Community-Forest Relations.
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station. General Technical Report
PNW-GTR-566.
Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management,
Cedar City, Utah. 111 pages.
Dana, S.T., and S.K. Fairfax. 1980. Forest and
Range Policy: Its Development in the United
States, 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill
Book Co. 458 pages.
Endter-Wada, J., D.J. Blahna, R. Krannich, and M.
Brunson. 1998. A framework for understanding social science contributions to ecosystem
management. Ecological Applications 8(3):
891-904.
Lilieholm, Tessema, Blahna, and Kruger
Endter-Wada, J., and D.J. Blahna. 2004. Linkages
to public lands: A framework for social assessment and impact analysis on public lands.
Presentation at the 10th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management,
Keystone, CO, June 2-4.
Flora, C.B., and J.L. Flora. 2004. Rural Communities: Legacy and Change, 2nd ed. Westview
Press, Boulder, CO. 372 pages.
Geisler, C.C. 1993. Rethinking SIA: Why ex ante
research isn’t enough. Society and Natural
Resources 6:327-338.
Gray, G.J., M.J. Enzer, and J. Kusel. 2001. Understanding Community-Based Forest Ecosystem
Management. The Hawthorn Press, Inc. New
York, NY. 447 pages.
Keough, H.L., and D.J. Blahna. 2006. Achieving
integrative, collaborative ecosystem management. Conservation Biology 20(5): 1373-1382.
Kruger L., tech. ed. 2003. Understanding Community-Forest Relations. USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station. General
Technical Report PNW-GTR-566.
Kusel, J. 2001. Assessing well-being in forest dependent communities. Journal of Sustainable
Forestry 13(1/2): 359-384.
McCool, S.F. 2003. Managing natural disturbances
and sustaining human communities: Implications of ecosystem-based management of public lands. Pages 127-143 in L. Kruger, tech.
ed., Understanding Community-Forest Relations. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station. General Technical Report
PNW-GTR-566.
Minnesota IMPLAN Group Inc. 2004. IMPLAN
Pro User’s Guide, v. 2.0. MIG, Stillwater, MN.
414 pages.
Stankey, G.H., B.T. Bormann, C. Ryan, B.
Shindler, V. Sturtevant, R.N. Clark, and C.
Philpot. 2003. Adaptive management and the
Northwest Forest Plan. Journal of Forestry
101: 40-46.
Sullivan, M. 1997. Monitoring Forest Resource
Dependence in Southern Utah: Applications to
Ecosystem Management. Unpublished M.S.
thesis, Utah State University.
458