Policy
Functional
Communities
ATool
forNational
Forest
Planning
(USDA-FS1990a,p. 13).
he175unitsoftheNational
For- schedules"
estSystem
arepreparing
to revise The conceptof functionalcom-
Working
withresidents
ofnorthern
Wisconsin.
theauthors
found15functional
theforestplansthathaveguided munity-geographicareasin which
communities
inand
around
theChequamegon
of andrelatheirmanagement
decisions
formore peopleshareperceptions
than a decade. The first round of naandNicoletNational
Forests.
Functional
tionshipsto forestsand naturalreprovedusefulin gathercommunities
aregeographic
areas
inwhich tionalforestplanningwascriticized sources--has
people
share
perceptions
ofandrelationshipsfor not providingdecisionmakersing and organizingsocialinformawith enough social information tion for forestplanning.Although
to forests
andnaturalresources.
Several
(USDA-FS 1990a).
the followingexampleis from the
issues
were
raised
byresidents
inall
One teamcharged
with critiquing Chequamegon
andNicoletNational
communities,
including
concern
about
thenationalforestplansreported,"We Forests,the conceptis applicable
development,
high
property
taxes,
day-use apparently
provided
thedecision
mak- across
all landmanagement
agencies.
fees,
maintaining
access
tonatural
resources,ers with reams of FORPLAN results
andmaintaining
thehealth
andproductivityandresource
databut with verylittle Social Assessment
The authors identified functional
offorest
ecosystems.
Forest
planners
will
information
onthedemographics,
culneedto address
theseconcerns.
ture, or lifestyleof constituents..." communities
aspartof a socialassess(USDA-FS1990b,p. 14).
mentfortheChequamegon
andNicoAnother team observed that on na-
letNationalForests
in Wisconsin(Jakes
In theUSDAForest
Sertional forestswherethe planning etal.in press).
By PamelaJakes,Thomas
Fish,
is a "broad level
process
wassuccessful,
"Theattention vice, a socialassessment
topeople's
needs
(emotional,
symbolic, or programmatic
datacollectionand
and organizational,
as well as eco- analysis
process
usedto generate
infor(USDA-FS
about
1995,
the p.
social
2.2). environment"
The social asnomic and communityneeds)were mation
givenconsideration
alongwiththeresourcecapabilitiesand commodity sessment is not a decision document
Deborah Carr, and Dale Blahna
Residents of northern
Wisconsin identified
15
functionalcommunities
(red),
definedasgeographicareas
where residents relate to and
Ashland
Drummond
usethe Chequamegon
and
Land O'Lakes
Nicolet National Forests
Glidden
(green)in similarways.
Florence
Park Falls
Phillips
Gilman
Eagle River
Lake
Laona
Medford
Lakewood
0
•
25
50
75
100
!
Kilometers
Peer-Reviewed
Journalof Forestry 33
buta description
of past,present,
and makesense
outof thingstheyseeand but most often we met at the local
potentialsocialconditions.
Although cannotpredictin advance
(Branden- rangerstation.
Wemetduringtheday,
Chequamegon-Nicolet
forest
managersburget al. 1995).Althoughwhenwe overlunch, and after businesshours.
Our first task was to have residents
recognized
thatpeople
throughout
the beganourfieldworkwe assumed
that
Midwest had concerns about national
communities would coalesce around
identifygeographic
areas
thatmightbe
forest
management,
theywanted
theso- employment,
ourmodels
weresubject functionalcommunities.
We placeda
cialassessment
to focusonthepeople to change
depending
onwhatweheard pieceof Mylarovera mapof Wisconandtheareamostdirectlyaffected
by andobserved.
Theideaofoccupationalsin and asked them to look at the retheir decisions--year-round
residents communityis not new and hasbeen gionwithwhichtheyweremostfamilin northern Wisconsin.
found common in the western United
iar andcirclethe areaswherepeople
Oneofthefirstchallenges
wefaced States(Salaman1974; Carrolland Lee use and relate to the forests and natural
wasmakingtheinformation
usefulto 1990).
resources
in similarways.
Given the time limitations,we conplanners.
The assessment
needed
to orWe thenaskedquestions
developed
ganizethenearlyhalf-million
people centrated
on identifying
communities to solicitperceptions
of howtheyand
livingon or neartheChequamegon-in theimmediate
proximity
of thetwo theirneighbors
think aboutanduse
Nicoletintomanageable
units.It also
the Chequamegon
and NicoletNaneeded
to provide
theplanning
team
tionalForests
andothernearbyforestwith as much information as time allands0akeset al. in press).
It wasnot
lowedaboutconcerns
regarding
future
uncommonfor peopleto fine-tune
forestmanagement.
Finally,theinfortheirmaps,changing
theboundaries
to
mation neededto be linked to the land-
scape,
showing
theconnection
between
wherepeople
liveandtheirconcerns.
Weusedtwoapproaches
to organizinginformation
on northernWisconsin. First,we lookedat categorical
groups--groups
that havesimilarsta-
exclude some areas and include others
IdentiJ)ing
functionalcommunities
When
all the interviews were com-
pleted,weoverlaid
thesheets
ofMylar
and,takingintoaccount
theinformaLeet al. 1990,p. 9
tion
from
the
interviews, drew
boundaries
for 15 Chequamegon-
tistical or definitional characteristics
Nicolet functional communities. The
(Flynn 1985). We usedUS Census national
forests.
We madeno attempt
datato describe
the groupof people to identifycommunities
outsidethis
whoareresidents
(byageandeduca- areaor incorporate
communities
of intion),andanother
groupconsisting
of terestrepresented
by visitorsandsea-
boundaries
arenotsacrosanct
butgenerallydelineateareaswherepeople
households
(by incomeandtypeof sonal residents.We focused on assesshousing).
ingthenoneconomic
socialaspects
of
Functional
groups,
oursecond
ap- communities;no economicanalysis
proach,
gobeyond
dataandshowpeo- was done. A full discussion of our
ple'sbehaviorand their interactions methodology
canbefoundin Jakes
et
with eachother(Flynn1985).They al. (in press).
arecreatednot by theanalystbut by
Selecting
keyinj•rmants.
We asked
socialconditions.For the Chequa- the five district rangerson the
megon-Nicolet
socialassessment,
the Chequamegon-Nicolet
to identify
social conditions of interest were resi-
shareforest-relatedinterests,relation-
ships,andconcerns.
A significant
part
of the populationendedup outside
the functional communities we iden-
tified,butjustasfunctional
communities are not meant to be all-inclu-
sive,so the boundariesdo not indicate
wallsbetweengroupsof people.The
shapes
merelymapthe differences
in
the waypeopleuseandrelateto the
national forests.
"keyinformants"
whowouldbe able
Community
profiles.Information
dents'
economic,
political,
community, to discuss
the relationshipbetween from the interviews
helpeduswrite
and cultural ties to the areasnatural rethe residents and the national forests.
communityprofiles.Profilesinclude
sources.To define functional commuFromthe listsprovidedby the dis- descriptions
of the communityas a
nitiesandseehowpeoplerelateto and trict rangers,we tried to interviewat whole,thecommunity's
relationship
to
useforests,we relied on interviews.
leastfour peoplein eachrangerdis- forestresources
andpubliclands,and
trict--generally two ForestService the community's
relationship
to the
Methods
employees
and two non-ForestSer- national
forests
andperceptions
of naWe useda process
referred
to asan- vice employees.
Althoughwe were tionalforestpolicies
andemployees.
A
alyticalinductionto developfunc- interested in the diverse views of res- list of issues
importantto the infortional communities for the Cheidentsin andaroundeachrangerdis- mantscompleted
theprofile.
quamegon-NicoletNational Forests trict,wedid nottry to find represen(Brandenburgand Carroll 1995). tatives of all interests.
Findings
With analytical
induction,researchers Interviews.
We interviewed
46 yearRatherthan identifyingcommudonotbeginfieldwork
withprecisely roundresidents
duringSeptember
and nitiesbyoccupation,
asweexpected,
definedhypotheses
to be tested,but earlyOctober1996.We met at mills, the residents of northern Wisconsin
rather,
goto thefieldin anattempt
to retailstores,
campgrounds,
andresorts, identifiedcommunitiesby culture,
:34 March 1998
tradition, and leisure activities. Our
highpropertytaxesandto a certainex-
•nformants believed that both new
tent blamed them on the need to make
and long-time residentsof our
Chequamegon-Nicolet
communities
hvedwherethey did because
of the
highqualityof life. This qualityof
hfe depends
on access
to the North
Woods, including its lakes and
streams:being able to spend an
eveningdrivingall-terrainvehicles
(ATV)orcross-country
skiing,being
able to hunt or fish just minutes
fromhome,andhavingaccess
to the
experiencesand resourcesof the
Chequamegon
andNicoletNational
Forests.
Peoplein northernWisconsin were definingthemselves
and
theirneighbors
basedon howthey
hvedtheir lives,not by how they
earneda living.
Theprocess
usedto identifyfunc-
upfor incomenotbeinggenerated
by
publicland. However,residents
also
accepted
high taxesas the priceof
maintaining
the highqualityof life
theyvalued-•aqualityof lifedirectly
estplansaspromises--promises
that
were brokenwhen output targets
weren't met. Some residents didn't un-
derstand
that outputshad changed
withchanging
conditions
andassumptions. In some cases,when residents
didunderstand
theplanning
process,
forestmanagers
neglected
to inform
The issueof day-use
feescameup them of changingconditions,so
oftenduringdiscussions
of taxes.Al- changes
in outputs
appeared
arbitrary.
thoughfeesarebeingcharged
ononly
Anotherissuewaspublicinvolveone districtof the Chequamegon- mentin forestplanning.Many resiNicolet,residents
objectbecause
they dentsexpressed
interest
in participatbelieve
theyhavepaidforthemanage- ingmorefully,andoneobserved
that
ment and use of national forests
"thekeyto successful
management
is
throughtheir incomeand property goingto beincluding
community
resitaxes.
Theyviewday-use
feesasanat- dentsin theplanning
process."
temptto charge
thema thirdtimefor
Finally, key informantsrecogaccess
or services
they'vealready
paid nizedtheimportance
of maintaining
for twice.
thehealthandproductivity
of forest
Despitecomplaints
abouttheper- ecosystems
but did not seeecosystem
uonal communities revealed the issonalcostofhavinga national
forestas health as an end in itself. The health
suesthat wereimportantin different a neighbor,
therewasno support
for and vitality of their northernWisareas.For example,one residentof changing
theownership
ofthese
lands. consin communities depend on
the ParkFallscommunitycharacter- Residents
toldustheywantedto keep maintainingand improvingecosys•zedhishomeasthe"fumecapitalof publiclandsin publichandsbecause temhealth.Theywantto seethesonorthernWisconsin."
Peoplein this thenational
forests
provided
access
to cial impactsof forestmanagement
area love their snowmobiles and
resources
thatwerequicklydisappear- decisionsanalyzedand discussed,
ATVs, and any forestmanagement ing. They seelandsthat wereonce but they are concernedabout the
decisionaffectingmotorizedrecre- open to the public being locked balance between local and national
ationusewouldbeof paramount
in- away--fordevelopment
thatresidents priorities.We wereasked,"Why do
terest.On theeastern
edgeof there- areunableto participate
in because
of nationalconcernsalwaysoverride
gion,in the Florencecommunity,a therisingcosts
of forestandlakeshore local issues or concerns?"
resident labeled that area the "silent
property--and
onepersonexpressed
sportcapitalof Wisconsin"
because angerabout"out-of-state
developers I}iscussion
manyresidents'
livesrevolvedaround wantingto makea fastbuck."Another
The qualitativeinformationcolwhite-water
recreational
opportuni- residentobservedthat "without the na- lectedthrough
interviews
andusedto
ues and activities. The residents of
tional forests we would see twice the
develop
community
profiles
canbean
the Laona communitywere con- development
and a hodgepodge
of importantcomponentof agencies'
cernedaboutpossible
miningdevel- land use."
public involvement. Information
opmentand its potentialimpacton
Almosteveryonerecognized
that from interviews can add texture and
waterquality.
therewouldbesome
change
in theway depthto thediscussion
of programs
Althougheach communitywas thattheirforests
manage
ATVs.Cur- andissues
during"Friends
of theForunique,severalthemesrecurred.All rentlythe Chequamegon's
trailsand est"meetings
andotheroutreach
efthecommunities
haveexperienced
an roadsareopento ATVs,buttheNico- forts.Informationfrom key inforrefluxofpeople
(either
seasonal
orper- let is closed.
Peopleon the Chequa- mantshelpsroundout the list of ismanentresidents)
andweregrappling megonrealizethattheywill seesome suesmanagers
developaspartof the
withtheaccompanying
development.restrictions
on ATVs,andpeopleon forestplanningprocess
and enables
Suchgrowthissignificant
to national the Nicolet realize that some ATV use them to anticipateresponses
to
forest
managers
because
it brings
into will becomelegal.One Nicoletresi- changesin forestmanagement.
Fitheforestmoreandperhaps
different denttoldusthatwouldbeall right, nally,interviews
aretwo-waystreets,
people
whowill demand
moreanddif- "justsoit isn'twideopenlikeon the withopportunities
notonlyfortheinferent benefits. As one resident obterviewer to listen and learn, but also
Chequamegon."
served, new residents "don't underMany of our key informantsex- for the subjectto askaboutnational
standthehistoryandtraditionof the pressed
confusion
andfrustration
over forestmanagement
anduse.
community
andhowwe benefitfrom theforestplanningprocess.
TheyinThe importanceof that last
goodforest
management."
terpretedthe harvestquantitiesand point--that interviewsinitiate diaMany peoplecomplainedabout otheroutputs
specified
in thefirstfor- loguebetweenForestServicemantied to the national forests.
Journal
of Forestry 35
Kendall/Huntß
agersand residents--should
not be tional communities are used. CheBtERNACKL
P.,andD. WALDORF.
1981.Snowball
samoverlooked.
No onetechnique
canre- quamegon-Nicolet
forestmanagers
can
plingmethod:
Problems
andtechniques
ofchain
resolveall the complexity
andconflict useourreportto helpidentify
prelimferral
samplingß
Sociological
Metboth
Research
10(2)
141-63.
potential
stakeinvolvedin public forestmanage- inaryplanningissues,
A.M., and M.S. CARROLL.
1995.Your
ment,butapproaches
thatbringpeo- holders,communitiesof interest,and BRANDENBURG,
place
or
mine?:
The
effect
of
place
creation
onenvtpletogether
to talkwithoneanother socialandpoliticalhotspots.
The soronmental
values
andlandscape
meanings.
Society
alsoprovides
valuable andNaturalResources
andlearnfromeachotherbeginthe cialassessment
8(5):381-98.
dataforenvironmental
impact BRANDENBURG,
process
of buildingtrustingrelation- baseline
A.Mß,M.S. CARROLL,
andK.A. BLATships--a critical part of successful statements.
Improvements
in identifyhER. 1995.Towardssuccessful
forestplanning
through
locally
based
qualitative
sociology.
!3&stern
publicparticipation
(Barber1981).
ingcommunities
anddeveloping
comJournal
ofApplied
Fores•10(3):95-100.
Improvingthe process.
To better munityprofileswill comewhenwe
M.S.,andR.G. LI•E.1990.Occupational
identifyfunctionalcommunities,
re- havea betterunderstanding
of how CARROLL,
community
andidentity
among
Pacific
Northwest
searchers
shouldspendtimefinding managers
usetheseassessments,
and
loggers:
Implications
for adapting
to economic
people
tointerview.
A district
ranger
or whenmanagers
havea betterideawhat
changes.
In Community
andJ3rest•:
Continuities
m
thesociology
ofnatural
resources,
eds.R.G.Lee,D R
otherlocallandmanager
canprovide
a mightbe possible
in an analysis
of
Field,andW.R. BurchJr., 141-55.Boulder,
CO
goodinitiallist,butasweinterviewed functional communities.
Westview Press.
residents,we realized that there were
Furtherapplications.
Besides
its use FL';S•,J. 1985.A group
ecology
method
forsocial
imothers
whocouldhavehelped
usdraw in preparing
notices
ofintentandpubpactassessment.
Social
Impact
Assessment
99-100
thecommunity
profiles.
If wehadhad licinvolvement
processes,
theconcept 12-24.
EJ.,T.E. FISH,D.S. CARR,
andD. BLAHNA.
In
moretime,wewouldhaveexpanded of functional
communities
is applica- JAKES,
press.
Practical
social
assessments
fir nationaI
Jbrest
our list of key informantsusinga bleto otherplanning
activities,
particplanning.
Gen.Tech.
Rep.
NC-. St.Paul:
USDAForsnowballing
technique
(Biernacki
and ularlythedevelopment
of ForestSerestService.
Waldorf 1981).
vice socialimpactanalyses.
These LEE,R.G, D.R. FIELD,andW.R.BURCHJR.1990.InIdentification of functional comanalyses
aredefinedas"acomponent troduction:
Forestry,
community,
andsociology
of
resources.
In Community
andj3restry:
Conumunities
should
precede
forest
planre- of theenvironmental
analysis
process natural
nuities
in thesociology
ofnatural
resources,
eds.R G
vision.Informationfromcommunity in which social science information
Lee,D.R. Field,andW.R.Burch
Jr.,3-13. Boulder,
profiles
wouldprovide
valuable
input andmethodology
areusedto evaluate CO: Westview Pressß
for the notice of intent, which identior projecthowpresentprograms
or SALAMAN,
G. 1974.Community
andoccupation:
Anexfiesissues
to beaddressed
in planrevi- proposed
actionsmayaffecthumans" ploration
ofwork/leisure
relationships.
NewYork:
Cambridge
University
Press.
sion,andbackground
for developing (USDA-FS1995,p. 2.2).
(USDA-FS).
1990a.Critique
of
meetingprocess
and content.FuncA social
impactanalysis
begins
with USDAFOISTSERVICE
landmanagement
planning:
lOlume
1,Synthesis
ofthe
tional communities could also indicate
selecting
theimpacts
or impactcatecritique
oflandmanagement
planning.
USDAForest
sitesfor meetings.
gories
to beanalyzed.
Residents
could
Service
FS-452.
Washington,
DC:USDAForest
SerThe process
we usedto identify develop
impactcategories
thatreflect vice,Policy
Analysis
Staff.
ß1990b.
Critique
oflandmanagementplanntng
functionalcommunities
wastotally the issuesand concerns of their funclOlume
7,
E•ctiveness
of
decisionmaking.
USDAForineffective
in reachingtheAmerican tionalcommunities,
andsocial
impacts
estService
FS-458.
Washington,
DC:USDAForest
Indiansof northern
Wisconsin,
prob- couldbeevaluated
separately
for each
Service,
Policy
Analysis
Staff.
ablybecause
ourconcept
did notfit a community;
theanalysis
donefor the
. 1995.Social
impact
analysis:
Principles
andproNative world view. When we asked
Tongass
NationalForest
planrevision cedures:Student manual USDA-Forest Service
the few American Indians we were
Course
1900-03ß
Washington,
DC: USDAForest
isanexample
(USDA-FS1996).FuncService,
Ecosystem
Managementß
able to interview to define their comtionalcommunity
focusgroups
could
ß1996.73ngass
landmanagementplan
revision-munities,
theyidentified
areas
thatran alsohelpforestmanagers
evaluate
poRevised
supplement
tothedra•environmental
impact
from Thunder Bay to Sault Ste. tentialimpacts
andanticipate
therestatement. USDA Forest Service R10-MB-314a
Marie, Ontario, and down into south- sponse
of eachcommunity
to theplan
Washington,
DC:USDAForest
Service,
Alaska
Re-
ern Wisconsin, Minnesota, and even
alternatives.
The evidence from our social assess-
gion.
SouthDakota.Their relationship
to
the landis determined
by traditional menteffortindicates
thatidentifying
hunting,fishing,andgathering,
and functional communities in and around
theareas
in whichtheypractice
these nationalforestsis the first stepin PamelaJakes(e-mail:pjakes/nc@j5
activities is "home"--whatever
the
building
a constructive
relationship
be- j•d.us)isproject
leader,
NorthCentral
distance.
Incorporating
American
In- tweenpubliclandmanagers
andtheir Forest
Experiment
Station,
St.Paul,MN
dianperspectives
intofunctionalcom- localcommunities--a
stepthatcanul- 5510& ThomasFish is researchassistant,
munities will take additional research.
timatelycontribute
to sustainable
for- University
ofMinnesota,
St.Paul,'
Deborah Carr is researchsocial scienttst,
Finally,followupeffortsshouldas- estryandcommunities.
sessthe applicabilityof functional
North CentralForest
Experiment
Stacommunities
to forestplanningto de- Literature Cited
tion,EastLansing,
Michigan;
andDale
terminewhatpartsof thecommunity BA•ER,D.M. 1981.Citizenpartia•ationinAmerican Blahnaisassociate
pro•ssor,
UtahState
communities:
Strategies
fir successß
Dubuque,IA:
profiles
aremostuseful
andhowfuncUniversity,
Logan.
:36 March 1998