Supporting Community-based Forestry through
Service-Learning:
A Case Study of the Harwood Union Forest Project
Kimberly DePasquale
A Research Thesis Proposal
Kimberly Coleman
M.S. at the Rubenstein of Environment and Natural Resources
The University of Vermont
August 2, 2011
Committee:
Cecilia Danks, Ph.D., Advisor
Barri Tinkler, Ph.D., Chair
Walter Poleman, Ph.D.
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 4
Literature Review ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Community-based Forestry ................................................................................................................................. 5
Stakeholder Collaboration .................................................................................................................................. 6
Social Capital............................................................................................................................................................. 7
Service-Learning ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
Proposed Research.................................................................................................................................. 11
Research Setting ................................................................................................................................................... 11
Data Collection ...................................................................................................................................................... 11
Data Anlysis............................................................................................................................................................ 12
Limitations ............................................................................................................................................................. 13
Anticipated Outcomes, Final Products & Dissemination ........................................................... 14
Work Cited ................................................................................................................................................. 15
2
Abstract
Social capital, defined as networks of trust and reciprocity, has been described as a critical component of
successful community-based forestry initiatives. Recent literature suggests that community-based
collaboration may build social capital. However, the literature that explores the ability of service-learning
to create social capital is still relatively limited. This qualitative study will utilize thematic analysis of
participant observations, archival documents and interviews to examine one partnership, the Harwood
Union Forest Project. Research objectives are 1) to compare initial levels of social capital to levels after one
year of the partnership and 2) to identify the factors that contributed to the creation and/or diminution of
social capital between project partners. This research will expand on existing theory by examining what is
known about the development of social capital in collaborative groups and applying it to service-learning
partnerships. Understanding service-learning’s potential to build social capital will contribute to
universities’ ability to support community-based forestry initiatives.
Introduction
In 1995, The Journal of Forestry published an opinion article by Steven Yaffee and Julia Wondolleck titled
“Building Knowledge Pools and Relationsheds”, in which the authors argued that the management of public
forested lands was becoming increasingly complex and that the Forest Service and other land management
agencies needed to adapt their practices and management styles accordingly. One of the strategies that
the authors suggest is the intentional development of networks of relationships between diverse sets of
individuals and groups within communities of interest. Yaffee and Wondolleck dub these networks,
“relationsheds” and argue that the Forest Service should facilitated their development to insure effective
public forestry for the twenty first century (Yaffee & Wondolleck, 1995).
The concerns asserted by Yaffee and Wonolleck are still relevant today, as community groups are
increasingly faced with making difficult decisions about the management of public or communal resources.
For example, more and more communities across the U.S. are forming community-based forestry initiatives
to address pressing environmental issues (Agrawal, Chhatre, & Hardin, 2008). The need for relationsheds is
clearer then ever – but who should facilitate their development and how? Many researchers, as well as the
World Bank, have suggested that social capital makes partnerships between different kinds of organizations
productive (Evans, 1996; Pretty, 2003; Putnam, 1995; "Social Capital," 2011). Additional research suggests
that the development of social capital in community groups can be facilitated by outside sources, such as
local governments, non-profit organizations, and collaborative processes (Fernandez-Gimenez & Wagner,
2008; Warner, 1999). Supporting the development of social capital within community groups may be an
effective strategy for facilitating successful relationsheds and community-based forestry initiatives.
Yaffee and Wondolleck suggest that the Forest Service should aid in the creation of relationsheds, but
universities can also play a role. One avenue is through service-learning, an increasingly popular pedagogy
on US college campuses. Because it focuses heavily on civic engagement and reciprocal relationships,
service-learning may be a tool for universities to support the creation of social capital among community
groups, thereby supporting in the development of relationsheds and community-based forestry initiatives.
To test this theory, I propose conducting a case study of the Harwood Union Forest Project, a communitybased forestry initiative in which service-learning partnerships between the University of Vermont and
Harwood Union High School have been the primary mechanism for accomplishing project objectives.
Can service-learning build the social capital needed for successful of community-based forestry initiatives?
The Harwood Union Forest Project provides an excellent opportunity to investigate this question. This
proposal outlines a research thesis that will ask, “Was social capital among members of the Harwood Union
Forest Project increased as a result of participation in the partnership?” and, “What factors contributed to
the creation and/or diminution of social capital between project partners?” I hypothesize that universities
can facilitate the construction of the social capital needed to establish relationsheds by engaging in servicelearning partnerships with local communities. Service-learning may provide an important opportunity for
universities to redefine their role in community-based forestry initiatives as facilitators of relationsheds.
Literature Review
Community-based Forestry
The term community-based forestry (CBF) describes a wide range of practices, processes and
initiatives focused around the management of forested landscapes by community groups or
collaborations for community benefit (Christoffersen, Harker, Lyman, & Wyckoff, 2008). CBF
can take many forms, including forest cooperatives, urban and community forestry,
collaborative public forest partnerships, community-based conservation, tribal forestry, and
community owned forests CECILIA, HOW DO YOU WANT ME TO CITE YOUR OAK TYPOLOGY?.
Although CBF initiatives vary greatly depending on local needs, resources and values, they share
common goals (Christoffersen et al., 2008; Danks, 2009). Some of these goals include the
retention, restoration and sustainable management of forested ecosystems, securing of tenure
rights and access to forest benefits, equity in distribution of benefits and value streams, and
inclusive and collaborative decision-making and governance in forest management (Burns, Gray,
McDermott, & Schweitzer, 2006). In short, CBF in any form seeks to achieve the interdependent
goals of achieving ecological health and social well-being (Danks, 2009). The aims of CBF are
similar to those of community-based collaborative natural resources management (CBCRM),
which is defined as groups of diverse stakeholders who convene voluntarily to work on natural
resource policy, planning or management issues specific to a particular location (FernandezGimenez & Wagner, 2009). For the purpose of this paper, I will use CBF to refer to any
collaborative work done with the goal of providing forest-based benefits to a community or
community group.
In the United States, the early beginnings of CBF date back to colonial New England, when many
towns established communal forests to provide a variety of benefits for their citizens (Baker &
Kusel, 2003). CBF gained popularity in the U.S. in the early 1990s as a solution to conflicts
surrounding land use and access to public land in the West (Christoffersen et al., 2008). Since
then, CBF practices have evolved to address a myriad of issues facing forest-depend
communities across the U.S. In the West, where decades of fire suppression have resulted in
catastrophic wildfire and pest infestations, CBF has provided a model for collaborative forest
restoration efforts (Fleeger, 2008; Fleeger & Becker, 2010; Ryan & Hamin, 2008). In parts of the
country where private landownership is dominant, CBF has focused on conserving forested land
and educating landowners about sustainable management (Christoffersen et al., 2008;
Fortmann, 2008; Wilmsen, 2008). Although CBF in the US has expanded to encompass diverse
practices that address varied issues, current initiatives often promote increased community
participation on public lands, capacity-building and collective initiatives among private
landowners, and in some cases, community acquisition of forest land (Donoghue & Sturtevant,
2008).
5
In many of these locations, CBF initiatives have resulted in significant social, economic and
ecological impacts within their communities (Danks, 2009). In the West, CBF has been credited
with diffusing public land use conflicts between community groups, interest groups and
agencies (Christoffersen et al., 2008; Mattor, Burns, & Cheng; Richard & Burns, 1998). In many
cases, CBF has been the mechanism for giving historically marginalized populations a say in how
forests are managed, especially in cases where management decisions directly impact the
marginalized groups (Fortmann, 2008; Wilmsen, 2008). CBF can also provide a successful model
for restoring damaged ecosystems through collaborative efforts, for educating landowners
about sustainable forest management, and for building infrastructure and assets in local
communities, such as creating forest-based jobs or new forest products (Christoffersen et al.,
2008; Danks, 2009).
Stakeholder Collaboration
Although CBF holds great promise for forest-dependant communities, a successful CBF initiative
is not always easily achieved. Over the past decade, researchers have begun to examine the
conditions under which successful CBF initiatives occur (Danks, 2009). Among the many
conditions required for a successful CBF program, stakeholder collaboration has been identified
as a critical component (Christoffersen et al., 2008; Dukes, Firehock, & Birkhoff, 2011; Mattor et
al.; Richard & Burns, 1998; Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000; Yaffee & Wondolleck, 1995). For the
purpose of this paper stakeholder collaboration refers to people, institutions, or social groups
collectively making decisions about, or doing work on, a forested area that is mutually important
to everyone involved (Stakeholder Collaboration: Building Bridges for Conservation, 2000).
Research indicates that stakeholder collaboration is crucial to the success of CBF initiatives;
Wondolleck and Yaffee conducted a comprehensive assessment of almost 200 cases of
stakeholder collaboration in natural resource and environmental management and found that
collaborative processes achieve ecological results while also improving community-level
communication and cooperation (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). Additional research shows that
interactions between different groups results in an exchange of ideas, the dissemination of
knowledge, access to funds to both remove financial barriers and leverage more funds, and
access to other tangible resources, such as academic resources and technical training (Lauber,
Decker, & Knuth, 2008; Mattor et al.). Stakeholder collaboration has also produces higher levels
of trust and more efficient problem-solving capabilities (Richard & Burns, 1998).
The importance of stakeholder collaboration in CBF can be illustrated through a case study of
the Karnataka Social Forestry Program. In “Social Forestry for Whom?” in Community
Management: Asian Experiences and Perspectives, Shiva et al describe the unsuccessful World
Bank funded CBF initiative in Karnataka, India. The program was established in response to the
rapid deforestation that took place in India during the 1960s. It sought to reforest 110,000
hectares of land by planting eucalyptus trees on private land, but the project was largely
unsuccessful at obtaining its objectives of addressing environmental degradation and providing
social benefits to the community. Shiva et al write, “The evidence from this experience suggests
that this particular approach to [CBF], far from achieving its goals, has in many ways
6
exacerbated the problems it sought to solve.” Shiva et al cite several chief factors that
contributed to the project’s failure: the omission of native trees used in the plantings, the
exclusion of indigenous silvacultural knowledge, and the fact that plantings occurred only on
private land with no attention given to communal lands. Shiva et al argue that these mistakes
might not have been made if more had been done to encourage stakeholder collaboration.
They write, “the organized will of the people, instead of the availability of foreign funds, should
be the starting point for [CBF]…perhaps ultimately the answer can be found in some form of
collaboration between the government foresters, nongovernmental organizations and village
people” (Shiva, Sharatchandra, & Bandyopadhyay, 1986).This case study highlights the
important role stakeholder collaboration can play in the success or failure of CBF initiatives.
Social Capital
Stakeholder collaboration is critically important for successful CBF initiatives, but anyone who
has experience working in a group can testify that not all collaborative efforts go smoothly. In
fact, some researchers have argued that stakeholder collaboration often fails to realize its full
transformative potential in environmental problem solving programs (Ventris & Kuentzel, 2005).
So what makes stakeholder collaborations work? Yaffee and Wondolleck write that, “successful
collaboration efforts are built on human relationships” (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). Many
researchers in the fields of economics, community development, and natural resources, as well
as the World Bank, have suggested that social capital is the key that makes partnerships
between different kinds of organizations productive (Evans, 1996; Pretty, 2003; Putnam, 1995;
"Social Capital," 2011). Flora and Flora claim that “[social capital] is extremely important for
creating a healthy ecosystem and a vital economy” (C. B. Flora, 1995; J. L. Flora, 1998).
Despite considerable research on social capital and its applications, there is no commonly held
definition of the term. Robinson, Schmid and Siles note that scholars in different disciplines
define social capital in different ways, often including possible uses, where it resides, and how
its service capacity can be changed. They suggest defining social capital by what it is, rather
then by its characteristics, “…a person’s or group’s sympathy toward another person or group
that may produce a potential benefit, advantage, and preferential treatment for another person
or group of persons beyond that expected in an exchange relationship” (L. Robison, Myers, &
Siles, 2002). Elaborating on this definition, Robison and Flora write that people who have
sympathy supply social capital and people who receive sympathy are the owners of social
capital. They write, “social capital may vary from mild sympathy such as awareness of others to
complete empathy in which one person may hardly distinguish his or her well being from
another” (L. J. Robison & Flora, 2003).
Robison and Flora suggest that social capital has value because it creates socio-emotional goods,
which can be exchanged for other socio-emotional goods or physical goods and services. They
define socio-emotional goods as, “expressed emotions between persons that validate, express
caring, or provide information that increase self-awareness and self-regard” (L. J. Robison &
Flora, 2003). They argue that people exchange socio-emotional goods in nearly every
interpersonal transaction, and, as such, social capital is critical to any endeavor where
7
interpersonal transactions are important. Both individuals and groups can possess social capital.
When groups have social capital, it is often referred to as community-level social capital.
Community-level social capital comes both from the group itself and from the networks
associated with the group (Woolcock, 1998). Individuals and groups can leverage social capital
to acquire other resources (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1992) and use it to facilitate collaboration
between stakeholders (Leach, 2002).
So how is social capital constructed? Research from the field of community development and
community-based collaborative resource management suggests that the construction of social
capital can be encouraged by outside facilitators (Arnold & Fernandez-Gimenez, 2007;
Fernandez-Gimenez & Wagner, 2008; Warner, 1999). Warner argues that social capital is
constructed through social ties that form as a result of natural interactions between community
members. In communities where these ties do not form as a result of work, school or
recreation, outside facilitators, such a local government and non-profit organizations, can
intentionally design opportunities to facilitate the creation of these ties, thereby encouraging
the construction of social capital (Warner, 1999). Additional research suggests that social capital
can be increased as a result of collaborative processes, such as participatory research and
community-based collaborative resource management initiatives (Arnold & Fernandez-Gimenez,
2007; Fernandez-Gimenez & Wagner, 2008, 2009). Similarly, Flora suggests that, “a particularly
effective way to build social capital is to work with diverse groups in the community to
strengthen youth (human capital)” (C. B. Flora, 2007). Understanding the mechanisms that
encourage the construction of social capital can be critically important for ensuring the success
of CBF initiatives.
Service-Learning
Research has established that the construction of social capital can be facilitated by outside
sources, such a local government and non-profits (Warner, 1999) and collaborative process,
such as participatory research and community-based natural resource management (Arnold &
Fernandez-Gimenez, 2007; Fernandez-Gimenez & Wagner, 2009). One other potential
mechanism for building social capital is service-learning. The term service-learning refers to “a
form of experiential education in which students engage in activities that address human and
community needs together with structured opportunities intentionally designed to promote
student learning and development. Reflection and reciprocity are key concepts of servicelearning”(Jacoby, 1996). The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) published the earliest
definition of service learning in 1969 and described it as “the accomplishment of task that meet
genuine human needs in combination with conscious educational growth” (Stanton, Giles, &
Cruz, 1999).The ideas that gave way to service learning, however, have been around much
longer then this definition. The conceptual forerunners of service learning can be traced back to
the philosophy and practices of extension education and the land grant movement of the 1860s.
In 1903 the University of Cincinnati founded the Cooperative Education movement, marking the
emergence of service learning framework in higher education. Similar philosophies were
espoused by the formation of Peace Corps and Vista in the early 1960s. By 1966 the term
8
“service learning” was used for the first time to describe a Tennessee Valley Authority-funded
project in East Tennessee with Oak Ridge Associated Universities. Since that time service
learning has developed into a value-based philosophy of education (Sigmon, 1995; Stanton et
al., 1999).
Service-learning holds many benefits for students and communities (Driscoll, 1996; Gelmon,
Holland, Driscoll, Spring, & Kerrigan, 2006). Research shows that service-learning has positive
effects on student personal and interpersonal development, student commitment to service and
student academic learning (Driscoll, 1996). Service-learning also serves as a vehicle for
providing useful services in local communities (Driscoll, 1996; Gelmon et al., 2006) and enhances
university-community relationships (Driscoll, 1996). As such, service-learning is becoming an
increasingly popular pedagogical approach on American college and university campuses
(Jacoby, 2003).
Similar to community-forestry initiatives, service-learning can take many different forms. Four
variables influence that form: mode, setting, frequency, and duration of the experience (Jacoby,
1996). Mode refers to the number of students participating in an experience (e.g. students
working in groups versus students working as individuals.) Differences in mode can yield
different experiences and outcomes for participants (e.g. the fewer students there are in a
group the more responsibility each student will have.) Setting refers to the level of interaction
students have with the community they serve. The three basic levels of setting are advocacy,
indirect service, and direct service. Frequency describes how often students engage in service
activities (e.g. once a week, once a month, or once a semester.) Duration of commitment
describes the length of the project from start to finish. Different examples of duration include a
one-day event, such as a campus wide clean-up day, versus a semester or yearlong project, such
as the establishment of community gardens. Depending on the course requirements and needs
of the community, service-learning experiences can range from one-time and short-term
experiences, such as an afternoon neighborhood clean-up day, to ongoing service learning in the
curriculum and intensive service learning experiences (Jacoby, 1996).
Service-learning experiences can be further described by the nature of their partnerships, which
are characterized as either transaction or transformative (Jacoby, 2003). Transaction
partnerships are designed to accomplish specific tasks without an expectations of a larger
systemic change, where as transformative partnerships proceed without a defined end goal and
with the expectation of eventual change (Jacoby, 2003). Jacoby writes, “Transformative
partnerships have the ability not just to get things done, but to transform individuals,
organizations, institutions, and communities…they can be dynamic, joint creations in which all
people involved create knowledge, transact power, mix personal and institutional interests, and
make meaning.” Jacoby argues that if more service-learning partners were transformative,
community members would begin looking to higher education to mobilize resources and create
social capital (Jacoby, 2003).
Although Jacoby and others believe that service-learning has the potential to build social capital
though transformative partnerships, the research to support such a concept is limited. In the
9
literature review of a 2010 paper, D’Agostino writes, “the emphasis on social capital in the
service-learning literature is relatively new, and the pool of such literature is quite small”
(D'Agostino, 2010). Some research has focused on the ability of service-learning to build
community, but has not directly focused on the construction of social capital (Gelmon, Holland,
Seifer, Shinnamon, & Connors, 1998; Keith, 1998). Additional research has explored the ability
of service-learning to build social capital among individual students, thereby increasing their
long term commitments to civic engagement but has not examined the construction of
community-level social capital within groups of service-learning partners (D'Agostino, 2010).
The research described in this proposal seeks to understand the ability of service-learning to
build community-level social capital within CBF initiatives.
10
Proposed Research
Research Setting
The Northern Forest Region is the largest contiguous forested region in the eastern United
States, covering more than 26 million acres of forested land (Sleeper et al., 2009). Vermont’s
Washington County, the location of Harwood Union High School, is part of the Northern Forest
Region. Historically, a diverse wood and wood product industry provided livelihoods for many
of the two million people living in communities within the Region (Sleeper et al., 2009).
According to the US Census Bureau, 58,696 people live in Washington County. Of those people,
94.5% are white, 50.7% are female, 5.1% 5 years old or younger, 19.8% are between 5 and 18
years old, and 14.6% are over 65 years old. 88.4% of people have graduated from high school
and 32.2% of people over the age of 25 hold a bachelor’s degree. The median household
income is $52,832 and the per capita income is $21,113. 9.7% of people living in Washington
County live below the poverty line ("The United States Census 2010," 2010).
Harwood Union High School educates 7th to 12th grade students from six towns in Washington
County: Fayston, Duxbury, Moretown, Waitsfield, Warren, and Waterbury. The School Board is
made up of representatives from each of the six towns, including one member who is also on
the faculty at UVM and a practitioner of PAR, Dr. Chris Koliba, Ph.D. The School was built in
1964 on a 20 acre plot. Since that time, Hardwood Union has acquired an additional 160 acres,
the majority of which is forested ("Harwood Union High School: Home of the Highlanders,"
2011).
Stakeholders involved in Harwood Forest Community Project include Harwood students,
teachers, administrators, alumni and staff, neighbors, parents of Harwood students, and School
Board members, as well as students and faculty from the University of Vermont. Stakeholders
come from a wide range of backgrounds and interact with the forest in a number of ways. Some
walk their dogs in the forest, and some use it to teach their students about water quality.
Others Nordic ski on the trails in the winter time and still others have never been to the forest
but understand its ecological and social importance. The majority of people involved with this
project will either be personally or professionally connected with the school (e.g. parent of
student, teacher) or live in close proximity to the school.
Data Collection
I will employ three data collection methods: participant observations, collection of archival
documents, and interviews with project participants. Following Burawoy’s extended case
method, I have been collecting participant observations since the Harwood Union Forest Project
began in October of 2010 (Burawoy, 1998). These notes describe interactions I have witnessed,
meetings I’ve attended, action steps I’ve helped carry out, etc, as well as my reflection on what
11
I’ve observed. At the end of each month, I review my notes and compose a memo summarizing
critical events and important themes.
Following Glense, I have also been collecting archival documents for document analysis since
the start of the project (Glesne, 1999). Many of these documents are meeting minutes, but I
have also collected “products” that have been developed through the partnerships. These
include PowerPoint presentations about projects students completed in forest, blogs created to
describe and document activities in the forest, lesson plans developed to teach students about
forestry skills, etc. Moving forward, I will continue to collect both participant observations and
archival documents until the end of the 2011-2012 school year (June, 2012). Since I began
collecting in October, 2010, this will give me 21 months of data.
I additionally plan to follow Arnold’s model to conduct open-ended interviews with at least 7
key partners (at least 4 from Harwood Union and at least 3 from UVM) who have participated in
the project (Arnold & Fernandez-Gimenez, 2007). I will select participants who have a
comprehensive knowledge of the project and who were actively involved in the project.
Interviews questions will be modeled after The World Bank’s Organizational Profile Interview
Guide, which was designed to “delineate the relationships and networks that exist among
formal and informal institutions operating in the community, as a measure of structural social
Capital” ("Social Capital," 2011). All interviews will be recorded and transcribed for analysis.
These interviews will both provide me with insight into what made the partnership between
Harwood and UVM work and will also serve as a validity check for my participant observations
and document analysis. Interviews will be conducted towards the end of the 2011-2012 school
year.
Data Anlysis
Using The World Bank’s Dimensions of Social Capital as a framework, I will conduct a thematic
analysis of the data using both etic and emic codes ("Social Capital," 2011). Etic codes will be
created based on dimensions listed in the World Bank’s model: groups and networks, trust,
collective action, social inclusion, and information and communication ("Social Capital," 2011). I
will additionally read through all the data looking for themes, and will develop emic codes based
on those themes. I will catalog all the codes in a “code book.” I will then to go back through the
data and assign codes to sections that support given themes. This will be done with participant
observations, document analysis and interview transcripts. Finally, I will construct matrices from
the data to identify patterns and trends in the codes to see if there is evidence that social capital
increased over the course of the project due to participation in service-learning partnerships. I
will also look for discrepant data that does not support the notion that social capital was
increased, such as evidence that the project fueled mistrust among project partners. All findings
will be shared and discussed with members of the Harwood Union Forest Project and their
interpretations of the data will be reflected in the results of the study.
12
Limitations
The predicted limitations of this study are researcher bias and lack of participation in the project
from certain stakeholder groups. Researcher bias is an anticipated limitation because, according
to Burawoy, it is inherit when using participant observation as a method for collecting data
because the researcher is so deeply involved with the research subjects (Burawoy, 1998). Lack
of participation in the project from certain stakeholder groups is an anticipated limitation
because it has been cited as an issue by researchers who conducted similar studies with
collaborative groups (Arnold & Fernandez-Gimenez, 2007; Fernandez-Gimenez & Wagner, 2008,
2009). In particular, Arnold and Fernandez-Gimenez cite that people who did not agree with the
project they were working on simply stopped participating or never joined in the first place
(Arnold & Fernandez-Gimenez, 2007). Additionally, meetings of the Harwood Union Forest
Project are generally held immediately after the school day, which is ideal for teachers but may
be inconvenient for working community members. This scheduling may limit who is available to
attend meetings and thus participate in the project and share opinions. As such, this study will
be limited by who is willing and able to participate.
13
Anticipated Outcomes, Final Products & Dissemination
I anticipate that the data will show an increase in community-level social capital among members of the
Harwood Union Forest Project as a result of participation in service-learning partnerships. Based on Rohe’s
model of social capital, the researcher hypothesizes that service-learning can facilitate the development of
social capital because it encourages civic engagement and trust, two key elements to building social capital.
Service-learning facilitates civic engagement by bringing diverse stakeholder together to work on common
issues. It also encourages reciprocal relationships between stakeholders (e.g. students and community
partners), which the researcher hypothesizes will build trust among the group members. Rohe write,
“Remember, to achieve social capital, residents must first be engaged, and this engagement must lead to
increased levels of trust” (Rohe, 2004). The researchers anticipates that engagement and reciprocal
relationship will be identified through the research as major factors that contributed to creation of social
capital among members of the Harwood Union Forest Project.
This case study will be widely applicable for any college or university interested in supporting CBF
initiatives. Service-learning offers a means for the academic community to support communities in making
difficult decisions about complex environmental issues while also educating students about those issues
and providing them with hands on experience in the field. As such, the researcher believes that
dissemination of the case study is important. Final products will include a case study co-submitted by
members of the Harwood Union Forest Project to The Trust for Public Land’s Conservation Almanac, an
academic journal article (target journal not yet identified), and report to the Dean of the Rubenstein School
of Environment and Natural Resources with recommendations about cultivating similar service-learning
partnerships in Vermont.
Work Cited
Agrawal, A., Chhatre, A., & Hardin, R. (2008). Changing governance of the world's forests. Science,
320(5882), 1460-1462.
Arnold, J. S., & Fernandez-Gimenez, M. (2007). Building social capital through participatory research: An
analysis of collaboration on Tohono O'odham tribal rangelands in Arizona. Society & Natural
Resources, 20(6), 481-495.
Baker, M., & Kusel, J. (2003). Community forestry in the United States: learning from the past, crafting the
future. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the
sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Press.
Burawoy, M. (1998). The extended case method. Sociological Theory, 16(1), 4-33.
Burns, S., Gray, G., McDermott, M., & Schweitzer, L. (2006). Perceptions and Participation in US Communitybased Forestry: Communities Committee of the Seventh American Forest Congress by American
Forests.
Christoffersen, N., Harker, D., Lyman, M. W., & Wyckoff, B. (2008). The State of Community-Based Forestry
in the United States: A Report to the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities: Community
Forest Consortium.
Coleman, J. S. (1992). The Foundations of Social Theory. Theory and Society, 21(2), 263-283.
D'Agostino, M. J. (2010). Measuring Social Capital as an Outcome of Service Learning. Innovation in Higher
Education(35), 313-328.
Danks, C. M. (2009). Benefits of community-based forestry in the US: lessons from a demonstration
programme. International Forestry Review, 11(2), 171-185.
Donoghue, E. M., & Sturtevant, V. E. (2008). Forest community connections : implications for research,
management, and governance. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Driscoll, A., Holland, B., Gelmon, S., & Kerrigan, S. (1996). An Assessment Model for Service- Learning:
Comprehensive Case Studies of Impact on Faculty, Students, Community, and Institutions. Michigan
Journal of Community Service Learning(3), 66-71.
Dukes, E. F., Firehock, K., & Birkhoff, J. (2011). Community-based collaboration : bridging socio-ecological
research and practice. Charlottesville, N.C.: University of Virginia Press.
Evans, P. (1996). Government action, social capital and development: Reviewing the evidence on synergy.
World Development, 24(6), 1119-1132.
Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., & Wagner, C. L. (2008). Does community-based collaborative resource
management increase social capital? Society & Natural Resources, 21(4), 324-344.
Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., & Wagner, C. L. (2009). Effects of Community-Based Collaborative Group
Characteristics on Social Capital. Environmental Management, 44(4), 632-645.
Fleeger, W. E. (2008). Collaborating for success: Community Wildfire Protection Planning in the Arizona
White Mountains. Journal of Forestry, 106(2), 78-82.
Fleeger, W. E., & Becker, M. L. (2010). Decision Processes for Multijurisdictional Planning and Management:
Community Wildfire Protection Planning in Oregon. Society & Natural Resources, 23(4), 351-365.
Flora, C. B. (1995). Social Capital and Sustainability: Agriculture and Communities in the Great Plains and
the Corn Belt. Research in Rural Sociology and Development, 6, 227-246.
Flora, C. B. (2007). Social Capital and Community Problem Solving: Combining Local and Scientific
Knowledge to Fight Invasive Species. Iowa State University.
Flora, J. L. (1998). Social Capital and Communities of Place. Rural Sociology, 63, 481-506.
Fortmann, L. (2008). Participatory research in conservation and rural livelihoods : doing science together.
Chichester, UK ; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gelmon, S. B., Holland, B. A., Driscoll, A., Spring, A., & Kerrigan, S. (2006). Assessing Service-learning and
civic engagement: Principles and techniques. Providence, RI: Campus Compact.
Gelmon, S. B., Holland, B. A., Seifer, S. D., Shinnamon, A., & Connors, K. (1998). Community-university
partnerships for mutual learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 5(Fall), 97-107.
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers : an introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Harwood Union High School: Home of the Highlanders. (2011). Retrieved October 1, 2011, from
http://www.harwood.org/
Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-learning in higher education : concepts and practices (1st ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Jacoby, B. (2003). Building partnerships for service-learning (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Keith, N. Z. (1998). Community service for community building: The school-based service corps as border
crossers. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 5, 86-96.
Lauber, T. B., Decker, D. J., & Knuth, B. A. (2008). Social networks and community-based natural resource
management. Environmental Management, 42(4), 677-687.
Leach, W. D. (2002). Surveying diverse stakeholder groups. Society & Natural Resources, 15(7), 641-649.
Mattor, K., Burns, S., & Cheng, T. Regional Networks Supporting Community-Based Forest Stewardship and
Benefits: A Case Study of the Northern Arizona Partnerships: U.S. Endowment for Forestry and
Communities, Inc.
Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science, 302(5652), 1912-1914.
Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: American's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
Richard, T., & Burns, S. (1998). Beyond "scoping" - Citizens and San Juan National Forest Managers, learning
together. Journal of Forestry, 96(4), 39-43.
Robison, L., Myers, R., & Siles, M. (2002). Is Social Capital Really Capital? Review of Social Economy, 60, 121.
Robison, L. J., & Flora, J. L. (2003). The social capital paradigm: Bridging across disciplines. American Journal
of Agricultural Economics, 85(5), 1187-1193.
Rohe, W. M. (2004). Building social capital through community development. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 70(2), 158-164.
Ryan, R. L., & Hamin, E. (2008). Wildfires, Communities, and Agencies: Stakeholders' Perceptions of Postfire
Forest Restoration and Rehabilitation. Journal of Forestry, 106(7), 370-379.
Shiva, V., Sharatchandra, H. C., & Bandyopadhyay, J. (1986). Social Forestry for Whom? In D. C. Korten (Ed.),
Community management : Asian experience and perspectives (pp. xxii, 328 p.). West Hartford,
Conn.: Kumarian Press.
Sigmon, R. L. (1995). Appendix B: An Organized Journey to Service-Learning. Service-Learning: A
Movement's Pioneers Reflect on its Origins, Practices, and Future: Council of Independent Colleges.
Sleeper, D., Abbott, W., Aber, J., Catanzaro, P., Colgan, T., French, J., et al. (2009). Our Carbon, Our
Communities: A community-based vision for using wood biomass in an era of climate change:
Hubbard Brook Research Foundation.
Social Capital. (2011). Retrieved October 22, 2011, from
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/EXTTSOCIALCAPI
TAL/0,,contentMDK:20193049~menuPK:418220~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:401015~i
sCURL:Y,00.html
Stakeholder Collaboration: Building Bridges for Conservation. (2000). Washington DC: World Wildlife Fund.
Stanton, T., Giles, D. E. J., & Cruz, N. C. (1999). Service-Learning: a movement's pioneers reflect on its
origins, practices and future. (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
The United States Census 2010. (2010). Retrieved October 1, 2010, from
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/
Ventris, C., & Kuentzel, W. F. (2005). Critical theory and role of citizen involvement in environmental
decision making: A re-examination. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 8,
519-539.
16
Warner, M. (1999). Social capital construction and the role of the local state. Rural Sociology, 64(3), 373393.
Wilmsen, C. (2008). Partnerships for empowerment : participatory research for community-based natural
resource management. London ; Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work : lessons from innovation in natural
resource management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy
framework. Theory and Society, 27(2), 151-208.
Yaffee, S. L., & Wondolleck, J. M. (1995). Building Knowledge Pools and Relationsheds. Journal of Forestry,
93(5), 68-68.
17