FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Working Toward a PractitionerDerived Definition in Seattle
Michele Romolini, Weston Brinkley, and Kathleen Wolf
MICHELE ROMOLINI is a Doctoral Candidate at the Rubenstein School for Environment &
Natural Resources, University of Vermont, 81 Carrigan Drive, Burlington, VT 05405; WESTON
BRINKLEY is a Social Science Analyst, Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, 400 N 34th St,
Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103; and KATHLEEN WOLF is a Research Social Scientist with joint
appointments at the College of the Environment, University of Washington, and the US Forest
Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
While “stewardship” is often used to describe environmental improvement efforts, it is difficult
to find an agreed upon definition of the term. Current research examines stewardship
programs, activities, networks, and outcomes. A comprehensive definition should take into
account the perspectives of all stakeholders. Practitioners and project managers have
particularly direct experiences of stewardship, however little has been done to determine how
they define the term and its implementation. Establishing a shared concept of stewardship is
essential to further research, and the intent of this preliminary study is to begin to develop a
definition. Researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives of nine
Seattle environmental organizations, who collectively have over 100 years of experience in the
field. Conceptual Content Cognitive Mapping (3CM) was used to elicit responses to the question
“what is environmental stewardship?” The 3CM method encourages participants to reveal and
explore their cognitions and perceptions about an idea or activity. Responses are open-ended,
rather than constrained by finite lists of questions or variables. Analysis of 3CM responses
generates thematic, structural representations of shared concepts and their interactions across
study participants. Results show that these practitioners have a multi-layered definition of
stewardship, from environmental improvement to community building, from actions to
outcomes. This array of perceptions is displayed in their organizational activities, and as further
research may show, in organizational networks and outcomes. This initial work builds upon
1
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
ongoing stewardship mapping research in New York City, and is part of a larger project
comparing stewardship networks in Seattle and Baltimore. Through continued study in these
and other cities, this work can be expanded and replicated to create a framework for urban
environmental stewardship research.
Keywords: stewardship, urban environment, community-based organizations, civic ecology,
natural resources management
Rationale
The motivation to define stewardship arose during the design of research to assess the social
and environmental outcomes of natural resource stewardship networks in Seattle and
Baltimore. This emerging research program builds on investigations that demonstrate the
important roles that community-based organizations and their networks play in urban natural
resources stewardship, including the pioneering work on organizations in New York City
(Svendsen and Campbell 2008). However, the intent of our new two-city research program will
be to first, replicate the process of inventory and mapping of environmental stewardship
organizations in Seattle and Baltimore, and then, to expand the work to better understand
social interactions. Through an analysis of the organizational networks that exist among urban
stewardship groups, we will examine whether these networks impact social and environmental
outcomes within the neighborhoods they serve, as well as the consequences of networks across
broader natural systems (such as watersheds) or social systems (such as a metro region).
Urban based natural resource research, while long conducted by the USDA Forest Service in the
Northern Research Station through their Urban Natural Resource Stewardship theme, has only
more recently taken place elsewhere in the country. Nationally, State and Private Forestry has
been dealing heavily with urban topics in their Urban and Community Forestry program.
Additionally, urban conditions have appeared in the US Forest Service strategic plans (USDA FS
2007), articulating the need for urban research, and explicitly delineating the goal of engaging
urban America with forest service programs (goal 6). Despite this foundation and
acknowledgment of the importance of urban work, research in the field is now just emerging in
2
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
the Pacific Northwest. The need for foundational work in the Pacific Northwest is therefore
paramount at this time. Research needs specific to the region have been compiled and assessed
based on considerable input from stakeholders and professionals. These results are being used
to further develop a regional approach to urban natural resource science in the Pacific
Northwest (Wolf and Kruger 2010).
Urbanized areas face increasing environmental issues and concerns. Government agencies may
be able to identify and formulate policy to address these issues, yet do not have adequate
resources (particularly in current economic conditions) to restore or mitigate environmental
systems. Stewardship activity is increasingly acknowledged by citizens, scientists, and policy
makers as a viable strategy to address ecological concerns. Yet, until recently, systematic
understanding of the spatial distribution and characterization of stewardship has not been
pursued. Effects of stewardship have more often been measured in rural landscapes, where
stewardship activity is dispersed on the landscape and cumulative effects of multiple
organizations are negligible (Hajkowicz and Collins 2009). The situation in cities may be quite
different; there may be synergistic effects due to the multiple programs and actions that
typically focus on any urban green space. Initial studies of stewardship within urban areas
suggest that environmentally targeted activity is a stated purpose, but that social consequences
are substantially important to many organizers and participants (Brinkley and Wolf, In prep.).
Social benefits of stewardship activities are likely to be at least as important as direct or
perceived ecological benefits for motivating participation in stewardship.
To test these emergent assertions, and develop hypotheses regarding urban environmental
stewardship, we propose that it is important to construct a shared definition for the term. As
described below, the term “stewardship” is currently applied to a variety of meanings and
practical settings, which can confound potential research questions, analyses, and results.
Imbedded within a definition should be understandings of geographic and social scale, range of
participants, expected land or resource outcomes, and research methods and analyses. Less
ambiguous treatment of the concept will be beneficial not only to our future research, but also
3
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
to other researchers studying these themes. A shared definition will also facilitate long term
and cross-site comparisons of stewardship outcomes.
In an effort to identify a practitioner-derived definition of stewardship, we conducted
Conceptual Content Cognitive Mapping (3CM) interviews with individuals of nine nonprofit
environmental stewardship groups in Seattle, representing a cross section of organizational size
and mission focus. This participatory approach to concept building acknowledges the
particularly relevant and complex perceptions and knowledge of those who are actively
working in environmental stewardship. Actively engaging stewardship leaders can provide
understandings about a significant, but likely underestimated, environmental action community
across urban landscapes. This can lead to a more accurate understanding of urban
environmental stewardship. The results presented in this report provide a preliminary concept
of environmental stewardship, informed by organizations in Seattle. We hope this work
launches additional dialog on the definition, functions, and outcomes of urban environmental
stewardship.
Background
There are several literature themes that are important to an understanding of the importance
and consequence of environmental stewardship. First, several decades of research indicate that
people are positively affected by having nature in everyday built settings, with benefits accrued
from both passive and active encounters. At times, people come together to manage resources
(for a variety of purposes) and improved social capital can be a consequence. We have little
understanding of the organizational relationships or networks that constitute effective natural
resource action, including urban environmental stewardship. More information about these
social dynamics is provided in this section. This complex interplay of nature reactions, largely
taken for granted by organizations and institutions, contributes to the ambiguity of definition
that now marks environmental stewardship.
4
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
Nature-Based Benefits
Studies indicate a full range of benefits that may be obtained through passive experiences of
urban natural resources, as well as through the active participation in the development and
management of these resources. The existing literature identifies multiple benefits provided by
nearby nature for individuals, including personal restoration and healing (Kaplan 2001, Ulrich
1984), stress and anxiety reduction (Heerwagen 2009, van den Berg et al. 2007) and ecological
literacy or a place-based knowledge (Orr 1992).
Additionally, community-based benefits are associated with both active and passive encounters
with city nature. These include empowerment (Westphal 2003), place attachment (Grese et al.
2000, Ryan 2006), social ecology (Grove et al. 1999), community resilience (Svendsen 2009,
Tidball and Krasny 2007), ecological democracy (Hester 2006), establishing and improving social
ties (Kuo 2003), and developing social learning (Wals and van der Leij 2007).
Collaboration and Networks
Community-based environmental organizations can play a role in developing stewardship
programs and can impact both social and environmental conditions in the communities where
they work. For instance, some studies suggest that such organizations can be used as a proxy to
assess social capital1 in communities (Fukuyama 2000, Kramer 2007). Participation in
associations has also been shown to play a role in community management of local natural
resources (Weber 2000). Beyond the single organization; however, a large body of research
exists on collaborative natural resources management (Koontz et al. 2004, Ostrom 1990,
Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000), which can sometimes take the form of polycentric governance
systems (Andersson and Ostrom 2008, McGinnis 1999). This work is relevant to an examination
of networking among environmental stewardship groups.
In addition to direct environmental improvement, several studies provide evidence that
collaborative resource management increases social capital (Mandarano 2009, Schneider et al.
2003, Wagner and Fernandez-Giminez 2008) and that greater social capital can lead to
successful management and improvement of natural resources (Kramer 2007, Pretty and Ward
2001). In the interest of developing measures to evaluate these benefits, an emerging literature
5
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
identifies the numerous applications of social network analysis (SNA) to understand
collaboration in natural resources management. Recent relevant examples include using SNA to
categorize and understand stakeholder relationships in natural resource management (Prell et
al. 2009) and to evaluate social capital in collaborative planning efforts (Mandarano 2009).
The studies suggest that community-based organizations play an important role in managing
natural resources and building social capital, and that successful outcomes often rely on
effective collaborations through organizational networks. Recent research in the field of
networks describes different types of network structures (Baldassari and Diani 2007) and
provides support that the effectiveness of a network is dependent on its structure (Provan and
Milward 2001). What is missing from the literature is empirical research analyzing network
structure as it relates to social and environmental outcomes of stewardship. In the study of
Seattle and Baltimore, we will examine this relationship as it pertains to urban environmental
stewardship. To move forward with this work, we must first develop a working definition of
environmental stewardship.
Existing Stewardship Definitions
Environmental stewardship represents the commitment of a person to the land, where land has
the broad natural place-based connotations first developed through the writings of Aldo
Leopold in the 1940s. His definition of the Land Ethic and its manifestation through stewardship
was one of the early and foundational discussions on the meaning of environmental
stewardship (Leopold 1949). In the time since his writing the concept of stewardship has
continued to grow and expand into a ranging notion applied to many disciplines.
Though environmental stewardship may be a vital component of a wide variety of activities
such as volunteerism, civics, environmentalism through collaboration and partnership, and
community-based activity, there is no widely shared definition of the term. The literature of
stewardship presents a broad array of actions, activities, motivations, values, and feelings.
Stewardship is variably classified as an ethic, a tool, a result, or a goal. Little, if any work has
been done to synthesize or categorize environmental stewardship types or components.
6
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
One barrier in defining the term is that aspects of environmental stewardship are occasionally
contradictory. For example, stewardship is often perceived as ownership of place (Kaplan et al.
1998, Svendsen 2009); however, the term is often used to refer to something that cannot be
owned or is strictly communal (Hester 2006, Svendsen and Campbell 2008). Another common
contradictory assumption is that stewardship work is meant for the benefit of others; the
community as a whole (Svendsen and Campbell 2008) as opposed to efforts for personal
benefit (Grese et al. 2000, Svendsen 2009, Ulrich 1984). (See app. 1 for a sample list of
additional stewardship definitions.)
Each of these insights is indicative of a spectrum of attitude or assumption that is now
environmental stewardship. The collection of themes does not lend itself to an easily
discernable or applicable framework. Though each of the components of environmental
stewardship is significant, it is obvious that there is not an agreed upon definition of the term.
Despite this, environmental stewardship as a concept is widely used and crucial to research in
many fields. In attempting to outline a research program, a more practical and accessible use of
environmental stewardship can be established. We seek to define stewardship in the ways that
practitioners, as well as researchers, understand it. This will allow for a shared functional and
practical understanding of the components of stewardship and its spectrum of variations, which
will lead to improved implementation of stewardship methods.
Methods
As outlined, environmental stewardship is believed to provide a variety of benefits, which
can be realized and multiplied through organizational activities and collaborative networks.
Yet there is not a coherent definition or direction of stewardship in the literature. To
address this within the scope of a broader research program, we conducted interviews
with representatives from nine environmental organizations to attempt to identify a
practitioner-derived definition of stewardship in Seattle. It was determined that interviews
would be the best approach to tap into the rich perceptions and historical knowledge of
Seattle stewardship leaders. In addition to guiding questions, the two-hour interviews
included a cognitive mapping task, which allowed the participants to construct a map of
7
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
their personal definition of “environmental stewardship.” This definition will help provide
a foundation from which to further develop a working framework to study the activities,
collaborative networks, and eventual outcomes of environmental stewardship
organizations in Seattle. It can also provide a template to be applied to future research on
urban environmental stewardship.
Selection of Organizations and Participants
As in many qualitative research approaches, careful selection of participants was important in
this study. Selection criteria for participant organizations were that they:
had been working in the Seattle area for at least 15 years (to tap perceptions based on rich
historical context)
work directly with communities (to give the context of “on-the-ground” activities that could
contribute to a definition of stewardship)
had a history of collaborating with other organizations (to allow for construction of a shared
definition)
In addition to these criteria, organizations were screened based on organizational size (from
one volunteer to a staff of more than 50), geographic scope of programs (from a 60 acre park to
the entire Puget Sound watershed), and stewardship goals (from watershed restoration to
youth engagement) (table 1). Over a period of several months a list of 15 organizations was
constructed. Recommendations were solicited from staff of one particularly well-established
and connected organization (Cascade Land Conservancy) as well as the extensive knowledge of
the senior researcher on our team, who has worked with community-based organizations in
Seattle for more than a decade. Every organization on the list of 15 was contacted, with 12
responding. Interviews were conducted with nine organizations representing three size
categories. As seen in table 1, three organizations (Friends of Leschi, Friends of Interlaken, PPatch Trust) were completely volunteer-based, with no paid staff members. These three were
clearly designated as “small” organizations. Three organizations were considered to be “midsized” (Earthcorps, Seattle Tilth, Student Conservation Association) and three designated
“large” (Cascade Land Conservancy, Mountains to Sound Greenway, People for Puget Sound).
8
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
These categories were based on knowledge of the scope of their activities, funding, and
partnerships. The range of sizes and missions was purposefully constructed to avoid
overrepresentation of one type of organization.
In addition to organizational selection, we were equally particular in our choice of which
organizational representative to interview. Tenure was the main criterion in selecting
participants; each interviewee had extensive experience and historical context from which to
interpret a personal definition of stewardship. All participants were in high level leadership
positions within their organizations. Several of the participants had been with their respective
organization since its founding, and all organizations were represented by participants that
were among the longest-tenured staff members. Since three organizations elected to have
more than one interviewee, there were 13 participants in total.
It is important to note that while both organizational and participant selections were
deliberate, the individual respondents do not necessarily represent the organization as a whole.
Interviewees were asked questions about their organizations but were also asked to provide
their own thoughts and perceptions. It is expected that participant experiences are shaped by
their affiliations, though we recognize that personal cognitions can be quite different from
official organizational statements.
Interview Process
Interviews with the nine organizations were conducted during later summer 2009. Two of the
authors conducted each interview. The number of people who participated varied for each
organization. Six groups were represented by one person, two were represented by two
people, and one group was represented by three people. The meetings were semi-structured
with two-three overarching questions that prompted the participants to provide free-form
responses, and included:
What is the history of your organization?
Can you describe your organization’s main activities?
Which groups do you collaborate with?
9
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
The general timeframe of each interview was that the first hour was generally warm-up and
information gathering about the group, with recorded responses. Thirty minutes was dedicated
to the3CM exercise (see below), and the final 30 minutes given to discuss the broader project,
and wrap up. The varied format of the interviews seemed to effectively capture the activities of
many of these organizations. Three groups (Friends of Leschi, Friends of Interlaken, and P-Patch
Trust) offered us tours of their sites, where the participants were better able to illustrate their
stewardship efforts. Four of the nine interviews took place outdoors, providing an informal
meeting location and the opportunity to use place cues to enrich the interviews.
Conceptual Cognitive Content Mapping
Given the depth of knowledge of the interviewees, a cognitive mapping process seemed an
appropriate method of inquiry. Specifically, Conceptual Cognitive Content Mapping (3CM) is a
model developed by Kearney and Kaplan (1997) to collect information that fully reflects
respondents’ conception of a topic and encourages them to display their thoughts in a graphical
representation. As explained by Kearney and Bradley (1998):
The open-ended 3CM method highlights the concepts or factors that participants consider
relevant to a particular issue and provides an indication of the perceived relationships among
these factors. 3CM differs from other cognitive mapping techniques in that it focuses on the
notion of “ownership”; it assesses what is already in an individual’s head, related to a particular
topic, as opposed to what one might have wished were there. (p. 7)
As opposed to methods that provide respondents a finite list of choices, the 3CM process elicits
individualized and rich perceptual response that may include hierarchies, systems,
relationships, and groups within the theme of environmental stewardship. In this way, 3CM
draws out a person’s most salient understandings, allowing the respondent to externalize
potentially inaccessible notions. Within a 3CM interview the responder is the only one
providing information, taking direct ownership of her cognitive map about a phenomenon, and
is not biased or prompted by any other ideas or perceptions beyond the initial question
(Kearney and Kaplan 1997).
10
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
The prior work of Kearney and Bradley (1998) served as a template for the 3CM exercise. We
began by asking the organization representative(s) to consider “what is environmental
stewardship?” We then asked them to provide ideas, phrases, or terms that described
environmental stewardship. With each piece of information provided, we wrote it on a note
card and placed it in front of the representative. This process continued until the
representatives had a range of note cards in front of them. Once the respondent had finished
providing new items, we asked if they felt satisfied that they had a complete construct of
representative items for “environmental stewardship”; they were also told that they may
choose to add more ideas and note cards at any time.
For the next step of the process, representatives were asked to arrange or group the cards in
clusters that would further explain environmental stewardship. They then arranged the cards
into groups or systems that provided added meaning and displayed relationships (fig. 1). Such
perceived relationships were expressed as commonalities in groupings, hierarchies in
relationships, or processes in systems. We then asked questions about the arrangement or
groups of cards (e.g. Why this grouping? How are these related?). The discussions were
recorded, the final arrangements were photo documented, and the cards were collected and
retained.
The responses were analyzed in several ways. First, a simple word count was employed to
indicate the frequency of specific terms. Next, each researcher combined the response cards
from all of the interviews and attempted to organize or group them using the 3CM principles. In
addition to our own separate analyses, we asked a third researcher outside of the project to
categorize the same data. Finally, we compared individual clusters to determine if the
participants grouped items together in similar ways.
Analysis and Results
Participant Interview
As mentioned, during the first part of the interview, participants were asked exploratory
questions about the history of their organization and their activities. In addition to discovering
11
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
more about each organization, this part of the interview provided insight into the remarkable
depth of each respondent’s experiences. Three organizations were represented by individuals
who had helped found the group, and therefore had 25 or more years of experience. These
interviewees were able to provide a rich description of how their organization began and how it
changed through time. The remaining organizations were represented by individuals who had
from 6 to 16 years experience with their respective group. These participants also had an
impressive breadth and depth of knowledge about their organizations’ founding and history.
Content analysis of the transcripts illustrated that each respondent has an array of
responsibilities, including managing a large staff or large groups of volunteers, building
partnerships, overseeing programs, fundraising, and more.
Participants were also asked to provide information on collaborations. Content analysis of the
interview transcripts revealed that participants consider other stewardship organizations,
government agencies, local schools and universities, and corporations as collaborators. The
groups reported working with a range of other organizations, with six organizations as the
smallest number of collaborators and 22 as the largest. On average, each group is collaborating
with 15 other organizations, though all reported that their recalled list was not exhaustive. The
groups are interconnected as well, with all having collaborated with at least one other
interviewed group. One (Cascade Land Conservancy) was listed as a collaborator by seven of
the other organizations.
3CM: Rapid Brainstorming of Terms and Phrases
The 3CM process revealed an interesting set of responses. In total, the nine groups provided
162 words or phrases. One observation that emerged immediately during each interview
debriefing was the passion that all participants had for their work. In fact, “passion” was
included among the responses of two of the groups interviewed. Other repeated responses
were noted across the varied group types. Overwhelmingly, the respondents spoke of
environmental stewardship as a means to social ends, with words such as “people” and
“community” among the most frequently used. It also became clear that volunteerism is an
important component in environmental stewardship, illustrated by responses such as
12
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
“voluntary commitment” and “service to the community.” While biophysical benefits are often
the driving force to starting an environmental organization, social and individual benefits and
motivators were much more commonly mentioned. For example, respondents provided ten
permutations of “care” or “caring” (e.g. “caring for place” and “taking action about the things
you care about”). Appendix 2 provides a complete list of 3CM responses.
Table 2 reports a word count analysis across all respondents. This confirmed a preliminary
review of the interviews; the organizations tended to place much more emphasis on human
relationships and actions than some of the biophysical terms we may have originally expected.
In fact, of the 17 most commonly used items, “people” is the third most common, with words
such as “volunteer(ism),” “relationships,” and “community” also ranking on the list. The word
count analysis also shows that organizations place importance on how these people and
communities act, with action words “taking/acting/doing,” “service,” and “decisions” among
the items provided most often. Other items frequently mentioned such as “impact(s),”
“sustainable,” and “continuum/continue” suggest that participants place importance on
outcomes. Even the more biophysical ideas were stated in social language. Terms such as
“environment(s),” “space(s),” and “place” are often associated with societal use or enjoyment
of resources.
3CM: Clustering Exercise
In the 3CM exercise a person rapidly brainstorms words and phrases, or items, and then turns
to the more deliberate task of assembling clusters of ideas, or constructs, based on his or her
perceptions. At this point in the interviews the participants’ self-generated collections of terms
and words began to meld into conceptual meaning. In fact, only one interviewee determined
that his response phrases were best left as a collection of separate ideas. While participants
often struggled to sort their responses into clusters, they generally created a whole greater
than the sum of its parts. For example, one respondent provided items ranging from “voluntary
commitment” to “how we can collectively sustain ourselves.” As shown in figure 2, when
organizing the items, he offered a cohesive definition, describing environmental stewardship as
beginning at the individual level, growing out into the community, and becoming a more
13
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
communal construct. Figure 2 displays three 3CM clusters to illustrate how this respondent and
others organized their items into conceptual maps.
We note the effectiveness of the 3CM exercise in engaging participants as well as in eliciting
responses that they may not have otherwise provided. After looking at the large collection of
cards in front of him, one interviewee said in disbelief, “Wow. Did I say all of that?” Several
groups asked us to share pictures or discussed using the activity within their organization. As
we wrapped up the exercise, an interviewee who had entered the meeting mentioning her
overwhelming and frustrating schedule left energized, stating “It makes me feel like when I go
back to my job, I feel like, we’re doing this!”
Content Analysis Across all Responses
Using our preliminary word and cluster analyses as input, we used content analysis to devise a
collection of constructs that characterized the stewardship items provided. These themes are
meta-level interpretations, and directly incorporate the organizational and systemic structures
constructed by the respondents in the 3CM clustering activity. Each theme is described below,
along with a few examples of terms provided by the groups.

Values. Stewardship was defined as being motivated by a set of values.
o Environmental values. Concepts in this category included restoration, getting
back to true nature, and reducing our impacts on the environment.
o Personal ethics. These included responses such as moral obligation, spirituality,
and taking action about things we care about.
o Concern for community. Ideas here included camaraderie and taking back our
neighborhoods (from crime).

Behaviors and action. Environmental stewardship was described as taking physical
action to improve the local environment.
o Individual actions and decisions. These included concepts such as planting,
carrying a reusable mug, and picking up trash on the sidewalk.
o Collective actions. Responses in this category included concepts such as noticing
each other’s actions and getting others to help.
14
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010

Organizational tools. Groups described not only the mechanisms that they currently
employ, but also those that they would need to achieve their desired outcomes.
o Directed natural resources programs. Respondents gave examples of some
direct activities, such as organizing tree plantings and invasive removal.
o Outreach, education, citizen engagement. Groups mentioned concepts such as
advocacy, educating for stewardship, and creating activities to engage everyone.
o Collaboration with other organizations. Responses such as collaboration, center
of a cooperative, and government encouragement indicate that groups consider
the efforts of other organizations in addition to their own.

Desired and realized outcomes. Respondents often indicated that stewardship should
produce end products such as change in a community through restoration or
improvement.
o Environmental improvement. Respondents mentioned potential outcomes such
as creating healthy green spaces and a sustainable balance between built and
natural environments.
o Community building. Responses here included opening up to your neighbors,
creating a continuum of stewardship behavior, being open to other’s ideas, and
cultivating the health of relationships.
Discussion of Results
Using the content analysis of the terms and phrases provided by the stewardship
representatives, we propose a conceptual model that serves as a preliminary characterization
of environmental stewardship in Seattle (fig. 3). This model, being derived from the 3CM
process, is practitioner based and represents the perceived relationships between the types
and components of environmental stewardship.
As depicted, groups tended to conceptualize stewardship at two social scales, the individual
level and the organizational level. In the 3CM process, individual stewardship was generally
defined as more value-based. Specifically, values included environmental ethics, personal
ethics, and concern for community. Individuals apply their stewardship values both through
15
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
direct behaviors, actions and decisions as well as the involvement of others. Through acting on
their values, outcomes such as environmental improvement and community building as well as
personal benefits such as meaning or realization of passion were met. These positive outcomes
can strengthen initial motivations.
Organizational stewardship was often represented as goal-based, separated into the broad
categories of environmental improvement and community building. To reach their desired
outcomes, organizations use several approaches, or tools. These include direct collective
programsto improve and protect natural resources; outreach, education, and citizen
engagement; and collaboration with other stewardship organizations, often through networks.
Realized outcomes appear as outputs of this process. Resulting outcomes generate feedback,
motivating further goals, values, and thus actions.
Interestingly, the themes presented in the empirical literature are similar to those collected
through the 3CM exercise reported here. The use of environmental stewardship to achieve
social goals as explored by Kramer (2007), Westphal (2003), and Svendsen (2009) was a
prominent theme in nearly all the 3CM group responses. Moreover, the social aspects of
community, also called out in the literature, were the most common report of social benefits
gathered from the exercise. While the 3CM responses may not provide a full orfinal definition
of the term, our interpretive conceptual model does begin to specify and refine aspects of
environmental stewardship. We look forward to further dialog and discussion working towards
shared understandings.
Future Directions
This preliminary study of groups working in Seattle demonstrates that the widely used concept
of “environmental stewardship” is not easily defined by a few words, and is probably more
complex than many would assume. Stewardship organizations are providing essential services,
as they respond to identified environmental issues and threats with programs that engage
citizens. This most direct purpose is perhaps best understood by the public and public agencies.
16
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
Yet environmental stewardship goes beyond the biophysical; community-oriented
organizations also strive to build stronger communities through their stewardship activities.
This exploratory research is informative, but the development of a stewardship definition with
broad applications will require a combination of the intensive methods described in this paper
with surveys and other methods that can reach a larger sample size. Some future directions
may include:
Additional work in Seattle. While they provide an unusual depth of knowledge and experience,
the nine groups studied here may not be representative of the population of stewardship
organizations within Seattle. The 3CM method is too time intensive for large sample sizes,
but the concepts revealed in this study can be used as a basis for future surveys to determine
if the views of the nine organizations studied here are shared by other Seattle environmental
stewardship organizations.
Replication in other cities. Seattle groups may not be representative of those working in other
cities and nationally. Replicate and comparison studies are important. The first study
replication is projected to take place in Baltimore in mid-2010. As with any study, replications
are important to determine the degree to which findings in one place are generalizable to
other locations. Similarities and differences across cities could provide insight into whether
successful environmental stewardship programs and other sustainability initiatives can be
transferred from one city to another.
Compare with rural definitions of stewardship. In addition to studying other cities, a
comparison of concepts of urban and rural stewardship could provide insights into natural
resource management strategies across the urban to rural gradient.
Apply results to research on stewardship networks. The driving force behind this study was to
discover and articulate shared concepts of stewardship within an initial sample of
organizations. This work will give greater context and clarity to our developing research on
the environmental stewardship networks in Seattle and Baltimore. The study of collaborative
environmental stewardship networks will look at attributes such as how groups share
activities and resources, set interorganizational goals, exchange information, and evaluate
17
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
outcomes. We believe future work will be facilitated by a deeper understanding of how
practitioners define stewardship within their own organizations.
18
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
References
Andersson, K.; Ostrom, E. 2008. Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric
perspective. Policy Sciences. 41(1): 71-93.
Baldassarri, D.; Diani, M. 2007. The integrative power of civic networks. American Journal of
Sociology. 113(3): 735-780.
Brinkley, W.; Wolf, K.L. Forthcoming. Seattle-area environmental stewardship database and
census: preliminary data on environmental stewardship organizations in King and Pierce
Counties. Res. Note. PNW-RN-XXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station. Xx p.
Carr, A.J.L. 2002. Grass roots and green tape: principles and practices of environmental
stewardship. Annandale Australia: Federation Press. 268 p.
Fukuyama, F. 2000. Social capital and civil society. IMF Work. Pap. WP-00-74. Washington, DC:
International Monetary Fund. 13 p.
Grese, R.E.; Kaplan, R.; Ryan, R. L.; Buxton, J. 2000. The psychological benefits of volunteering
in stewardship programs. In: Gobster, P.H.; Hull, R.B., eds. Restoring nature: perspectives from
social science and the humanities. Washington, DC; Covelo, CA: Island Press: 265-280.
Grove, J.M.; Hinson, K.E.; Northrop, R.J. 1999. A social ecology approach to understanding
urban ecosystems and landscapes. In: Berkowitz, A.R.; Nilon, C.H.; Hollweg, K.S., eds.
Understanding urban ecosystems. New York: Springer-Verlag. 523 p.
Hajkowicz, S.; Collins, K. 2009. Measuring the benefits of environmental stewardship in rural
landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 93(2): 93-102.
19
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
Heerwagen, J. 2009. Biophilia, health, and well-being. In: Campbell, L.; Wiesen, A., eds.
Restorative commons: creating health and well-being through urban landscapes. Gen. Tech.
Rep. NRS-P-39. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern
Research Station: 39-58.
Hester, R.T. 2006. Design for ecological democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 480 p.
Kaplan, R. 2001. The nature of the view from home: psychological benefits. Environment and
Behavior. 33(4): 507.
Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S.; Ryan R. L. 1998. With people in mind; design and management of
everyday nature. Washington, DC; Covelo, CA: Island Press. 239 p.
Kearney, A.R.; Bradley, G. 1998. Human dimensions of forest management: an empirical study
of stakeholder perspectives. Urban Ecosystems. 2(1): 5-16.
Kearney, A.R.; Kaplan, S. 1997. Toward a methodology for the measurement of knowledge
structures of ordinary people: The Conceptual Content Cognitive Map (3CM). Environment and
Behavior. 29(5): 579.
Koontz, T. M.; Steelman, T.A.; Carmin, J.; Korfmacher, K.S.; Moseley, C.; Thomas, C.W. 2004.
Collaborative environmental management: What roles for government? Washington, DC:
Resources for the Future. 210 p.
Kramer, D.B. 2007. Determinants and efficacy of social capital in lake associations.
Environmental Conservation. 34(3): 186-194.
Kuo, F.E. 2003. The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology. Journal of Arboriculture.
29(3): 148.
Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County almanac. New York: Oxford University Press. 318 p.
20
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
Mandarano, L. A. 2009. Social network analysis of social capital in collaborative planning.
Society and Natural Resources. 22(3): 245-260.
McGinnis, M.D. 1999. Polycentric governance and development: readings from the workshop in
political theory and policy analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 432 p.
Orr, D.W. 1992. Ecological literacy: education and the transition to a postmodern world.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 210 p.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Prell, C.; Hubacek, K.; Reed, M. 2009. Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in
natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources. 22(6): 501-518.
Pretty, J.; Ward, H. 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Development. 29(2): 209227.
Provan, K.G.; Milward, H.B. 2001. Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating
public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review. 61(4): 414-423.
Putnam, R.D. 1995. Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy.
6(1): 65-78.
Ryan, R. 2006. The role of place attachment in sustaining urban parks. In: Platt, R.H., ed. The
Humane Metropolis. Cambridge: University of Massachusetts Press: 61-74.
Schneider, M.; Scholz, J.; Lubell, M.; Mindruta, D.; Edwardsen, M. 2003. Building consensual
institutions: networks and the National Estuary Program. American Journal of Political Science.
47(1): 143-158.
21
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
Svendsen, E. 2009. Cultivating resilience: urban stewardship as a means to improving health
and well-being. In: Campbell, L.; Wiesen, A., eds. Restorative commons: creating health and
well-being through urban landscapes. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-39. Newtown Square, PA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 58-87
Svendsen, E.S.; Campbell, L.K. 2008. Urban ecological stewardship: understanding the
structure, function and network of community-based land management. Cities and the
Environment. 1(1): 1-31.
Tedesco, L.P.; Salazar, K.A.; Covitt, B. 2006. Advancing urban environmental stewardship
through service learning and community partnerships. Paper presented at the 35th Annual
Meeting North American Association for Environmental Education, St. Paul, MN.
Tidball, K.G.; Krasny, M.E. 2007. From risk to resilience: What role for community greening and
civic ecology in cities? In: Wals, A.E.J., ed. Social learning towards a more sustainable world.
Wagengingen: The Netherlands: Wagengingen Academic Press: 149-164.
Ulrich, R.S. 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science.
224(4647): 420-421.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2007. Forest Service stretegic plan
FY 2007-2012. FS-880. Washington, DC. 32 p.
van den Berg, A.E.; Hartig, T.; Staats, H. 2007. Preference for nature in urbanized societies:
stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues. 63(1): 79-96.
Vemuri, A.W.; Grove, J.M.; Wilson, M.A.; Burch, W.R. 2009. A tale of two scales: evaluating the
relationship among life satisfaction, social capital, income, and the natural environment at
22
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
individual and neighborhood levels in metropolitan Baltimore. Environment and Behavior
OnlineFirst. vol. 0: pp. 0013916509338551v1.
Wagner, C.L.; Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E. 2008. Does community-based collaborative resource
management increase social capital? Society and Natural Resources. 21(4): 324-344.
Wals, A.E.J.; van der Leij, T. 2007. Social Learning. Wals, A.E.J., ed. Wageningen: The
Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers: 17-32; 497-506.
Weber, E.P. 2000. A new vanguard for the environment: grass-roots ecosystem management as
a new environmental movement. Society and Natural Resources. 13(3): 237-259.
Westphal, L.M. 2003. Urban greening and social benefits: a study of empowerment outcomes.
Journal of Arboriculture. 29(3): 137.
Wolf, K.L.; Kruger, L.E. 2010. Urban forestry research needs: a participatory assessment
process. Journal of Forestry. 108 (1): 39-44.
Wondolleck, J. M. Yaffee, S.L. 2000. Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in
natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press. 277 p.
23
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
Appendix 1: Varying Stewardship Definitions as they appear in the Literature:
Stewardship is…
Definition
Source(s)
Recogni[zing] that humanity is but one element of a complex
web in ecology
Carr 2002
Actions based on different extrinsic and intrinsic motivations
Ryan 2006, McPherson 1993
Guided by peer leadership or on recommendation of ecologists
and urban planners
Carr 2002
Often compelled by personal connections to a natural resource
or system that is in decline, neglect, or is threatened
Carr 2002
An expression of human creativity driven by perceptions of
need, premised on the deep-seated traditions of volunteerism
in America
de Tocqueville 1835
Place-based over issue-based
Francis and Hester 1990;
Barlett 2005
About the cause rather than the place
Barlett 2005
Work strictly for the environment
Tedesco et al. 2006
For the community
Westphal 2003; Svendsen
2009
Something that is voluntary use of discretionary time
Svendsen and Campbell 2008;
Grese et al. 2000
Something that is responsibility
Hester 2006
Ownership of place
Svendsen 2009; Kaplan et al.
1998
Something that cannot be owned or is strictly communal
Hester 2006; Svendsen and
Campbell 2008
Work meant for others
Svendsen and Campbell 2008
Environmental work for personal benefit
Svendsen 2009; Grese et al.
2000; Ulrich 1984
Specific Quotes:
“Urban land stewardship is a strategy that includes elements of direct action, self-help, and
often education and community capacity building” (Svendsen and Campbell 2008, p.1)
24
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
“less rooted in oppositional social movements and more in accessing the rights to space
through collaborative, community-based resource management”(Svendsen and
Campbell 2008, p.1) “urban environmental stewardship combines land management
with the desires of civil society, the private sector and government agencies.”
(Svendsen and Campbell 2008, p.1)
“help with monitoring, clearing invasive plants, collecting seeds, planting…are directly involved
with land stewardship. In addition, numerous volunteers perform services that are less
directly tied to the land, including disseminating information (via newsletters for
example) and maintaining databases.” (Grese et al. 2000, p.265)
“taking positive action to repair and heal past ecological damages while building a positive
relationship with a place.” (Grese et al. 2000, p.275)
“to protect, nurture, and advocate” (Grese et al. 2000, p.62)
“flower plantings and urban gardening” (Grese et al. 2000, p.70)
“Tree- planting projects and other horticultural activities…ongoing commitment by local
volunteers to maintain and nurture ... Watering, pruning, and weeding…” (Ryan 2006,
p.70)
“Stewardship also implies a relationship with the earth that is based on respect for nature, and
a current and ongoing commitment to “active earthkeeping” akin to a custodial or
guardianship role.”(Carr 2002, p.15)
“…implies a moral or religious responsibility to life on earth, as part of nature, not having
dominion over nature.”(Carr 2002, p.15)
“…is not only about identification and connection with out little blue-green planet, but also
about ‘shared lifestyle preferences and beliefs about the way in which common
property resources contribute to a unique quality of life for the residents’; and ‘beyond
an individual connection to encompass collective responsibility’.” (Carr 2002, p.15)
Additional Sources:
Barlett, P., ed. 2005. Urban place: reconnections with the natural world. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press. 330 p.
de Tocqueville, A. 2002. Democracy in America. Mansfield, H.C.; Winthrop, D., trans. ed.
[Published originally as De la democratie en Amerique, 1835]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press. 722 p.
McPherson, E.G. 1993. Monitoring urban forest health. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment. 26: 165-174.
25
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
Appendix 2: Complete List of 3CM Responses:
The responses to the 3CM exercise are provided below. They are displayed as lists of words without the organization and grouping
that the respondents provided.
Cascade Land Conservancy
Earthcorps
People for Puget Sound
Volunteering
Mountains to Sound
Greenway
Pragmatism
Mindset
Student Conservation
Association
Cultivating volunteerism
Public space
Backyard
Service
Avoid NIMBYism
Getting others to help
Voluntary commitment
Outreach
Creating activities that
engage everyone
Center of cooperative
Reducing your impacts on
environment
Humans are part of the
environment
Relationships
Working
Actions
Walking the talk
Starts with self
Education for stewardship
Planting
Trees and forests
Taking action about things
you care about
How we can collectively
sustain ourselves
Getting people to care for a
resource
Adopt A ____
Reusable mug
Leaving a place better than
you found it
Grows out into community
Natural thing
Caring
Shade-grown coffee
Taking care of the place
where we live
Cultivating health of
relationships
Growing thing
Care for the environment
Purchasing decisions
Helping fix what's broken
Relationships and
connectivity
Sweeping the sidewalk
Understanding culture &
landscape
Biking vs. carpooling
Understand impact of our
everyday lives
Systems and interactive
processes
Monitoring
Continuum
Act of being a steward
Continuum
Caring for place
Engagement
Personal act
Changing your behavior
26
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
Restoration
Creating healthy green
spaces
What society needs to do
Connections
Moral obligation
Values
Wise decisions
Using stewardship to
educate people
Sustainable balance btw
built and natural
environment
Responsibility
Hiking
Provides benefits
Redefining "pristine"
Consider long-term impacts
of decisions
Sidewalk steward
More than just work
27
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
Friends of Interlaken Park
Friends of Leschi
P-Patch Trust
Seattle Tilth
Pickaxes
Not insular
Communication
Support
Bow-saws
People
Government encouragement
Careful
Machetes
Enriching
Advocates
Thoughtful
Organization
People-oriented
Organization
Service
Volunteerism
Building sense of community
Knowledge
Presence
Reliability
We're all part of being stewards
Thoughtful design
Shared
Dedication
Picking up trash
Fundraising
Active
Personable
Ornamental horticulture
Volunteer coordination
Caretaking
Monkey see monkey do
Taking back your space (from crime)
Resources ($)
Caring
Participation
Inter-generational
Continuity
Nurture
Competition
Spiritual
Outreach
Protect
Camaraderie
Opportunities and assets of your
surroundings
Inclusion
Promote growth
Weeding
Many forms
Collaboration
Internal value
Pulling
Protecting your own space
Inspire people
Wise use
Something that makes them feel good
Taking back your land (from invasives)
People
Sustainable
Hauling
Wilderness near home
Appreciation and acknowledgment
Meaningful
28
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
Cutting
Promise of wilderness
Conservation
Pinning down burlap sacks
Getting back to true nature
Organic
Putting mulch in wheelbarrows
Taking care of the environment
Sustainable and local
Taking the wheelbarrow to the area
Volunteer service to the community
Passion
Laying down the cardboard
Opening up to your neighbors
Ongoing
Learning on the job
Open to others' ideas about taking care
of the environment
Commitment
Crash course learning
Recognize that home impacts public
space and vice versa
Court-appointed groups
One person noticing another's actions
Passion
Lifetime work
Humor
Footnote
1
Social capital here will refer to the shared knowledge, norms, rules, and networks that facilitate collective experience within a neighborhood (Putnam 1995,
Vemuri et al. 2009).
29
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
Table 1—Seattle organizations participating in the study of urban environmental stewardship
Organization
Age
(yrs)
No. of
paid staff
Geographic scope
Stewardship goals
(from mission Statement)
Cascade Land
Conservancy
20+
47
Washington State
Conserving great lands, creating great
communities
EarthCorps
17
22
Western Washington
Building global community through local
environmental restoration service
Friends of Interlaken
26
0
Interlaken Park
(Seattle)
None available
Friends of Leschi
25
0
Leschi Neighborhood
(Seattle)
None available
Mountains to Sound
Greenway
19
17
King and Kittitas
Counties
Leads and inspires action to conserve and
enhance the landscape from Seattle across
the Cascade Mountains to Central
Washington, ensuring a long-term balance
between people and nature
P-Patch Trust
31
0 (14
member
board)
Seattle
To acquire, build, preserve and protect
community gardens... Through, advocacy,
leadership and partnerships…expands
access to community gardening across
economic, racial, ethnic, ability and gender
lines; promotes organic gardening and
builds community through gardening…seek
to break urban isolation by providing
opportunities for people to garden
together, learn from each other, develop a
sense of neighborhood, and create a more
livable urban environment
30
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
People for Puget
Sound
19
24
Puget Sound
To protect and restore the health of our
land and waters through education and
action
Seattle Tilth
22
20
Seattle
Inspire and educate people to garden
organically, conserve natural resources and
support local food systems in order to
cultivate a healthy urban environment and
community
Student
Conservation
Association
55
9
(in Seattle
office;
1,000+
national)
National
To build the next generation of
conservation leaders and inspire lifelong
stewardship of our environment and
communities by engaging young people in
hands-on service to the land
31
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
Table 2—The most common items that appeared in the 3CM exercise
Common words
Count
Common words
Count
Common words
Count
Taking/acting/doing
Care/caring
People(s)
Environment(s)
Space(s)
Steward(ship)
11
10
7
5
5
5
Impact(s)
Volunteer(ism)
Place
Relationships
Back
Part
4
4
3
3
3
3
Community
Service
Sustainable
Decisions
Continuum/continue
3
3
3
3
3
32
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
Figure 1—Participants organize their responses to the question “what is environmental stewardship?”
Figure 2—Conceptual Cognitive Content Maps of environmental stewardship. Sample respondent clusters with associated selfgenerated terms. All cluster titles also generated by respondents.
Figure 3—Conceptual model of “environmental stewardship” using 3CM results from Seattle environmental organizations .
33
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
Figure 1
34
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
Figure 2
Personal
Starts with self
Bridge
Grows out into
Community
Communal
How we can collectively sustain ourselves
Voluntary commitment
Relationships & connectivity
Personal Accountability
Responsibility
Cultivating voluntary
commitment (in others)
Systems & interactive processes
Humans are part of environment
Cultivating health of relationships
Actions/Physical Things
Connections
Conceptual/Feelings/Outcomes
Restoration
Sweeping sidewalk/ Sidewalk
steward
Natural thing/Growing thing
Relationships
Educating for
stewardship
Getting people to care
Caring for place
Responsibility
Monitoring
Values
Outreach
More than just work
Backyard
Stewardship for education
Public space
Provides benefits
Organic
Organizational resources
Resources
Knowledge
Ongoing
People
Passion
Fundraising
Sustainable & local
Inspire people
Thoughtful design
Continuity
Volunteer coordination
Organization
Conservation
Appreciation & acknowledgment
35
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
Collaboration
Awareness
Commitment
Government encouragement
Belief that it’s valuable
Making it part of people’s lives
Inclusion
Advocates
Communication
36
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
Figure 3
37
FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010
38