Collaborative Learning about Forest Understory ... - Semantic Scholar

J. For. 112(4):327–336 http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.13-044 Copyright © 2014 Society of American Foresters

RESEARCH ARTICLE

education & communication

Collaborative Learning about Forest Understory Restoration and Management: Identifying Goals and Sharing Knowledge Michaeleen E. Gerken Golay, Philip M. Bice, and Jan R. Thompson Ecosystem services provided by forests (e.g., nutrient cycling) are critical in midwestern landscapes. We conducted collaborative workshops with forest landowners and management professionals using specific strategies to provide information about nutrient dynamics in forests and learn about goals/obstacles for forest management in Iowa. Preparticipation surveys assessed knowledge and goals and postparticipation surveys measured learning and potential for forest management. Landowners’ goals included conservation, aesthetics, recreation, and water quality, whereas lack of management activities (e.g., harvesting), insufficient funding, and invasive species were cited as obstacles. Education and restoration of ecosystem integrity were identified as means to achieve goals. The collaborative learning framework contributed to increased participant knowledge about ecosystem structure/ function and plans for invasive species control, timber stand improvement, and restoration of desirable species. Facilitators learned that resources on invasive species management, as well as “easy-to-use” information about understory plants, would support additional restoration education and action. Keywords: herbaceous flora, ecosystem function, Iowa, hardwood forests, forestry outreach, urban woodland management

T

he landscape of the midwestern United States has been altered by large-scale removal of natural vegetation (e.g., prairie, forest, and wetland) and addition of anthropogenic land cover types (Huston 2005). In Iowa conversion for and recent intensification of anthropogenic land uses such as agriculture, urbanization, or exurban sprawl have left few remnant natural areas,which are further exposed to current and legacy effects of this disturbance (Bellemare et al. 2002) that can alter community

composition (Flynn et al. 2009) and lead to diminished ecosystem function (Naeem et al. 1995). Even so, remnant natural areas in the Midwest have great value for preserving biodiversity and certain ecosystem functions such as nutrient cycling and protection of water quality (Gerken Golay et al. 2013). In Iowa in particular, hardwood forests often remain along rivers and streams and are characterized as deciduous forests dominated by maples (Acer spp.), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and ashes (Fraxi-

nus spp.) in the bottomlands and by oaks (Quercus spp.), American basswood (Tilia americana), and hickories (Carya spp.) in the uplands (Thompson 1992). Relatively undisturbed areas in these forests also have a diverse community of herbaceous perennials (Eilers and Roosa 1994). In general, the herbaceous layer in hardwood forests accounts for much of the floristic diversity and plays an important role in nutrient cycling (Gilliam 2007). Because of these important functions, efforts have been devoted to understanding the resilience and recovery of the herbaceous layer in forests throughout North America that have been affected by anthropogenic activities (Gilliam 2007). Similar to other parts of the country, in the Midwest, rates of forestland parcelization have increased in recent decades, creating a large and growing number of landowners who own smaller areas (in Iowa, an average of 17 acres) of forest (e.g., Jones et al. 1995, Kuipers et al. 2013). Throughout the Midwest, the majority of forests (approximately 69%) are privately owned (Potts et al. 2004). In Iowa, about 82% of forestland is privately owned, including an increasing

Received December 2, 2013; accepted April 24, 2014; published online June 26, 2014. Affiliations: Michaeleen E. Gerken Golay ([email protected]), Silver Lake College, Manitowoc, WI. Philip M. Bice ([email protected]), Iowa State University, Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Ames, IA. Jan R. Thompson ([email protected]), Iowa State University, Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Ames, IA. Acknowledgments: This work was funded by the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture and the USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, with additional support from the Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management at Iowa State University and McIntire-Stennis funding. We thank the Iowa Department of Natural Resources Forestry Bureau, Iowa State University Forestry Extension, the Iowa and Illinois chapters of the Society of American Foresters, the Iowa Parks and Recreation Association, and the many private landowners who participated in our workshops and surveys. We thank J. Bolton and E. Keifer for assistance with data entry. Finally, we thank five anonymous reviewers and journal editorial staff for their helpful reviews of the article. Journal of Forestry • July 2014

327

number of even smaller forest areas around exurban homes (Leatherberry et al. 2005). The remaining 18% is publicly owned forestland and is managed by state, county, or municipal government personnel, depending on location. Challenges associated with the growing number of forest landowners are related to their levels of awareness and understanding and their likelihood to use forest management practices (Knoot et al. 2009). Only about 1% of Iowa forest landowners have written management plans (Leatherberry et al. 2005). Some studies have indicated that private forest landowners are motivated by a conservation ethic (Dutcher et al. 2004). They may intend to manage their forestland to achieve general conservation-oriented goals and specific environmental and aesthetic benefits, which are more important to them than opportunities to generate income (Hull et al. 2004, Davis et al. 2010). Professional foresters who consult with and assist private forest landowners may need to develop additional expertise to help landowners address these nontimber management goals. Finally, forest management decisions affecting remnant forests located within municipal settings are often made by urban park managers who have had little formal ecological training and whose management priorities may be limited to issues of public safety (Loeb 1987). However, nutrient capture and cycling functions in these settings have been significantly diminished by effects from urbanization, so restoration of function in these areas is important (Gerken Golay et al. 2013). Over the same time frame in which changes in landowner demographics have been observed, there also have been changes in knowledge of adult learning preferences. Recommendations have emerged suggesting that collaborative learning approaches in outreach and extension to these stakeholders would increase the effectiveness of these efforts (Daniels and Walker 1996, Keen and Mahanty 2005, Toman et al. 2006). As an alternative to formats wherein educators deliver information (via presentations or written materials) to relatively passive participants, a collaborative learning format allows for participant interaction in the construction of knowledge (Daniels and Walker 1996, Toman et al. 2006). We use the phrase collaborative learning to describe experiential learning in which participants (including facilitators) work together to construct new meaning via active, integrative, 328

Journal of Forestry • July 2014

Figure 1. A conceptual framework describing the context for collaborative learning workshops and anticipated pathways between learning, decisionmaking, and actions to enhance forest ecosystem functions/services.

and reflective thinking processes (Daniels and Walker 1996, Keen and Mahanty 2005). Evidence indicates that collaborative learning is consistent with adult learning theory by supporting communication, allowing a more problem-based approach, integrating prior experiences, providing learner autonomy, and creating a safe environment for participants to exchange information (McCaffrey 2004, Toman et al. 2006). Further, it has been suggested that this approach can enhance development and implementation of action and promote engagement in resource management (Selin et al. 2007, Cross et al. 2013). Collaborative learning can be designed to occur over a short time and involve individual decisionmakers and is thus distinct from social learning in which participants are engaged over extended periods of time to debate and determine appropriate management of communally owned resources (Schusler et al. 2003) or to solve large-scale and intractable challenges (Measham 2013).

Our conceptual framework (Figure 1) describes the context for which we designed these workshops to promote collaborative learning based on one-time participation that could influence individual decisionmaking and lead to subsequent action to enhance ecological functions and services. Given the likelihood of a strong conservation ethic among forest landowners, forest management professionals, and urban park managers, but probable lack of knowledge about the functional importance of the understory, we wanted to introduce new findings from research on understory community composition/function that could enhance their knowledge and lead to relevant management activities. We believed that recent findings from ecological research on the functions of herbaceous communities dovetailed nicely with landowners’ evolving and environmentally oriented management priorities. In addition, we expected that providing locally derived research-based infor-

Management and Policy Implications Agricultural intensification throughout the upper Midwest has led to degradation of natural ecosystems and increased pollution in the region’s waterways. Restoring areas of perennial vegetation in this landscape is a viable approach for improving water quality. Remnant hardwood forests are an example of plant communities that could contribute to improved water quality, but often these areas have been disturbed by human land uses (cattle grazing or urbanization) that decrease biodiversity and capacity to capture pollutants. Herbaceous understory plants play an important role for nutrient capture in these systems. Forest landowners and forest managers (agency or consulting forestry professionals) could increase ecosystem services by restoring understory plant communities. Although these stakeholders may lack prior knowledge of the specific role of the understory, their orientation toward conservation could lead to interest in restoration activities in forests. Increasing forest owners’/managers’ knowledge about forest herbaceous plants, their ecological role, and the potential for restoration might lead to management actions that could increase biodiversity, improve habitat quality, and protect surface water quality throughout this region. Collaborative workshops consistent with adult learning theory such as those described here can offer interactive opportunities for educators and practitioners to share information, discuss goals, and develop solutions to address management barriers.

mation to both rural and urban forest management professionals would enable them to assist landowners in identifying appropriate goals and to manage forests themselves to attain them. Because traditional informational workshops have limitations for motivating behavior change but are often preferred because they fit within the comfort zones of both presenters and participants, we investigated whether a collaborative learning workshop approach would be successful with these stakeholders, motivate participants to consider management changes, and generate new perspectives for additional research and outreach on this emerging topic.

Research Approach Project Overview This study was part of a project that included examining herbaceous layer nutrient capture and protection of stream water quality and determining the feasibility of understory restoration to improve ecological function in remnant rural and urban forests (Gerken Golay et al. 2013). We focused our ecological research on remnant forest areas surrounding headwater streams, where terrestrial and aquatic processes are tightly linked (Gomi et al. 2002). We examined nutrient uptake capacity and the restoration potential for native herbaceous perennials that would be ideal for reintroduction in degraded forests based on their life history characteristics and commercial availability (Gerken et al. 2010). This article reports on project outreach with forest landowners and land managers about restoration potential in remnant forests. Participant Groups All activities reported here were conducted according to an approved institutional review board (IRB) research protocol for human subjects (ISU-IRB-12-043). We facilitated a set of five collaborative learning workshops: three workshops for nonindustrial private forest landowners (hereafter landowners) and one workshop each for professional foresters and urban park management professionals. We held the first landowner workshop during concurrent sessions at the annual Tri-State Forest Stewardship Conference (Sinsinawa, WI; March 2012). We conducted a second landowner workshop at a Forestry Field Day (Lucas, IA; April 2012). We held a third workshop for forest landowners in Polk and Warren Counties (Camp Wesley Woods, Warren

County, IA; May 2012). Participants for the first two workshops were recruited by personnel with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and Iowa State University Extension. Project personnel recruited participants for the third landowner workshop through direct mailings to forest landowners in the targeted counties, as well as through a newspaper advertisement. We facilitated a workshop with professional foresters from Iowa and Illinois (Quincy, IL; May 2012) as well as a workshop with urban park managers (Mason City, IA; September 2012) at their respective annual meetings. Professional foresters and urban park managers were invited to participate via solicitations by their professional organizations (Iowa and Illinois Chapters of the Society of American Foresters or the Iowa Parks and Recreation Association). A total of 65 landowners, 36 professional foresters, and 11 urban park professionals voluntarily participated in the workshops, which varied in duration from 1 to 3 hours, depending on the venue. Content was held as constant as possible among the workshops, although the 1hour event had one fewer interactive activity. Collaborative Workshop Format At the beginning of each event we distributed preworkshop surveys to assess participant knowledge, document their forest management goals, and collect demographic information. The preworkshop survey included 14 –26 items (surveys for forest landowners contained additional demographic and forest management questions). Eight of the common questions were based on a rating (rising five-point) scale to assess participants’ knowledge about forest ecosystem structure, function, and the herbaceous understory, their level of concern about understory plant community diversity and stream water quality, and their likelihood to manage forestland by investing in understory restoration. Landowners and urban park managers were also asked about their levels of cooperation with neighboring forest landowners. The scales were constructed so that a rating of 5 indicated that a respondent was very knowledgeable, concerned, or actionoriented, a rating of 3 indicated a neutral response, and a rating of 1 indicated that a respondent was not at all knowledgeable, concerned, or action-oriented. In addition to the scale items, the survey contained three yes or no questions about participants’ past and present land management activities, and five to eight demographic questions to en-

able description of participant groups. We used a separate response card for participants to provide their mailing address if they were willing to receive a postworkshop survey. After participants completed the survey, we provided a 20-minute presentation on forest ecosystem structure/function, biodiversity, and the role of the herbaceous layer in nutrient cycling and water quality using locally derived research findings from both rural and urban forest areas (Gerken Golay et al. 2013). Specifically, we provided information on the link between composition and function in central Iowa forests and discussed the role of overstory and understory vegetation in water and nutrient cycles in both settings. The presentation included a contrast between two watersheds with different understory community composition and nutrient uptake capacities. We used research results to suggest that strategic nearstream restoration, especially in forested areas surrounding headwater streams in urban and rural settings, would enable environmental improvements with reasonable levels of investment. All participants received the same presentation information. We held a brief whole-group discussion after the presentation, so that participants could comment on the research results. We then invited participants to form groups of three to six, based on proximal seating, to engage in structured discussions with others. As an ice-breaker, we asked participants to introduce themselves and share one goal or challenge for forest management. After time for discussion within the small groups, we initiated a collaborative learning exercise using a Venn diagram focused on goals for forest landowners (see Sidebar 1 for collaborative learning strategy descriptions). We then facilitated a large group discussion to examine similarities and differences between diagrams generated by different groups. We next engaged forest landowners in small group discussions of a categorizing grid, which focused on obstacles and actions to address ecosystem function, followed by large group discussion. For foresters and park managers, the first exercise was the categorizing grid and the second exercise was a “jigsaw” in which participants formed large groups to explore single topics and then formed smaller groups with representation to support discussion of all topics (also detailed in Sidebar 1) related to management and collaboration to enhance forest ecosystem integrity. Group responses for all collaborative exercises were collected for later analJournal of Forestry • July 2014

329

yses. At the end of each workshop, we led whole-group discussions about resources needed to support forest management and a brief question and answer session. At the conclusion of the workshops, we distributed fact sheets based on our research on understory ecology for participants’ future reference. Approximately 6 weeks after each workshop, we administered a mail survey that included the previously described rating scale questions on knowledge, concern, and action. We also included open-ended questions for respondents to indicate whether they planned to or already had implemented specific management activities as a result of the workshop and whether they had identified potential resources to help them conduct planned activities. A reminder letter and new copy of the survey were mailed to nonrespondents after 2 weeks (modified from Dillman 2008). Data Analyses We compared responses with the rating scale questions about knowledge and attitudes on pre- and postworkshop surveys by calculating means for each question within participant groups and using t-tests to determine whether means were significantly different from neutral (at ␣ ⫽ 0.05). For postworkshop survey means, we used t-tests to determine whether responses within groups were different from preworkshop survey responses. Calculations were performed in Microsoft Excel, and statistical analyses were conducted using JMP 9.0 software (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). We analyzed all other data (open-ended survey responses and responses to collaborative learning exercises) qualitatively. We analyzed landowner goals on Venn diagrams to identify themes that emerged among responses, developed synthesis categories that represented all responses (Colaizzi 1978), and report examples from among them. We report the most frequent responses to summarize information gathered from categorizing grids and open-ended postworkshop survey questions. We report all themes that emerged from the jigsaw exercise.

Results Preworkshop surveys were completed by 61 forest landowners. The landowner group was 95% white and 72% male, averaged 48.5 years old, and, on average, had owned 79 acres of forestland for 16 years (for additional demographic information, see 330


Sidebar 1. Interactive Strategies Used in a Set of Workshops Designed to Engage Forest Landowners and Managers in Collaborative Learning about Forest Ecology and Management We used three structured activities to engage landowners, foresters, and urban park managers in identifying goals and sharing knowledge. We modified these activities somewhat from formal collaborative learning strategies (Johnson et al. 1991) to better address our purpose for the workshops. We used a “Venn diagram” as a graphic organizer to focus participant forest landowners’ attention on potential overlaps between their goals for their forestland and the ecological functions of forests, which would help in identifying “manageable” ecosystem characteristics that could be associated with achieving their goals. To do this, we asked individual participants to fill in a blank Venn diagram identifying (1) their goals for their forestland, (2) forest ecosystem characteristics that would contribute to ecological functioning at a landscape scale, and (3) elements that addressed both categories (the overlap zone). We then provided large-format blank Venn diagrams to small (three- to five-person) groups and asked them to reach consensus on three to four bullet points in each category. Finally, whole-group discussion focused on ideas in the large-format Venn diagrams, in particular, concepts in the overlap zone. Based on adult learning theory, graphic organizers such as Venn diagrams guide users to compare similarities and differences, which can enhance understanding and application of new knowledge (e.g., Marzano et al. 2001). A second strategy we used was a “categorizing grid” (adapted from Angelo and Cross 1993). We used this technique to enable participants to organize prior knowledge and incorporate new learning to identify and understand problems and begin to find solutions. On the categorizing grids we used with landowners, they were asked to first work individually (on blank grids) to identify and list obstacles that might limit ecosystem functions in their forest, the ramifications of these obstacles, and actions to eliminate the obstacles. We then provided blank large-format grids to the small groups and asked them to reach consensus on two to three items in each category. The categorizing grids for professional foresters and urban park managers also prompted participants to identify obstacles that might limit ecosystem functioning in forests for which they advised landowners or for which they were directly responsible for management. We chose this structure to involve participants in collaborative problem identification, to engage them in identifying actionable solutions, and to encourage them to seek and communicate more information with others (Johnson et al. 1991, Cross et al. 2013) (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Forest landowners engage as small groups in a categorizing grid exercise focused on obstacles and actions to address ecosystem function at a collaborative learning workshop conducted as part of a forestry field day in southern Iowa. (Photo by J. Thompson.)

We also used a “jigsaw” strategy to promote collaboration among professional foresters (adapted from Johnson et al. 1991). For this strategy, foresters were assigned to base groups and given a worksheet with a set of four topics about (1) feasibility of managing understory vegetation, (2) opportunities for collaboration among neighbors within watersheds, (3) integrating timber harvest activities with preservation of understory vegetation, and (4) overcoming barriers to restoration of ecosystem function. Each base group member was assigned one topic, and then members dispersed to form larger single-topic groups for brainstorming. After those discussions, participants rejoined base groups to share key points and complete the worksheet. We used this structure to create an opportunity for foresters to discuss a number of ideas in a short time frame as well as to engage participants with their professional colleagues and to be accountable to each other for exploring and sharing information on specific topics.

Table 1. Demographic information describing landowner, forester, and urban park manager participants in collaborative workshops focused on forest understory management. % Landowners Income ⬍$25k $25–50k $50–75k $75–100k ⬎$100k Residence Live onsite Live elsewhere Education High school 2-yr degree Some college 4-yr degree Graduate degree Foresters Organization State Education Federal Consulting Other Primary role Manage public forests Advising landowners Recreation/law enforcement Teaching/research Student Advising public managers Administration Other role Urban park managers Community population ⬍10,000 10,000–50,000 50,000–75,000 75,000–125,000 ⬎125,000 Primary role Administration Land management Recreation and athletics Park planning Public education Other role

6 19 26 23 26 41 59 7 5 19 38 31 30 30 15 15 9 16 39 3 10 13 6 3 10 18 45 18 0 18 69 6 6 6 6 6

Table 1). Preworkshop surveys were completed by 34 professional foresters, who had been in the profession for an average of 15.5 years, and most (90%) reported providing technical assistance for multiple forest sites. Preworkshop surveys were completed by 11 urban park managers who had served an average of 13.4 years in their positions and managed an average of 9.3 parks that were between 120 and 1,500 acres in size. Response rates for postworkshop surveys were 66% for landowners, 65% for foresters, and 82% for urban park managers. On preworkshop surveys, respondents

from all three groups expressed concern about diversity of understory vegetation and stream water quality in their forests, as well as their intent to manage the forest with ecosystem function as a primary goal (Table 2). Forest landowners and urban park managers rated their knowledge about forest ecosystem structure and herbaceous understory plants as “neutral.” Despite ambivalence about their knowledge, landowners and urban park managers expressed strong interest in investing time and effort in understory restoration on the preparticipation survey. Professional forester respondents indicated high levels of knowledge and high likelihood to recommend restoration of understory species. Urban park managers expressed intentions of collaborating with neighboring forest landowners, although individual forest landowners were neutral on this topic (Table 2). Landowner goals and forest functions identified on Venn diagrams generated by small groups consistently revealed conservation-oriented themes (Table 3). We organized these according to four categories for ecosystem services (as per the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005): provisioning services, cultural services, supporting services, and regulating services. For provisioning services, the dominant theme was income generation from a variety of forest uses. Cultural services identified by participants described their relationships to nature and recreational opportunities. Most diagrams identified wildlife and plant species diversity, invasive species control, forest health, and restoration of native species, which we interpreted as elements of supporting services. Finally, landowner responses indicated themes that can be categorized as regulating services, cultural services, or supporting services (Table 3). The Venn diagram structure encouraged landowner groups to consider their individual goals for their forestland, forest ecosystem functions at broader scales, and the possible overlap of these two sets of ideas (Sidebar 1 and Figure 3). Protecting water quality, providing biodiversity, and maintaining forest health were most frequently identified. This activity broadened participants’ considerations beyond their own objectives, enabling them to reflect on how they could contribute to overall landscapescale forest ecosystem functions through management activities. Categorizing grids developed by participants in all three groups (landowners, for-

esters, and urban park managers) revealed their perceptions about obstacles limiting ecosystem functions of forests (Table 4). Overall, participants identified lack of management activities (such as timber stand improvement or harvesting), lack of resources, and presence of invasive species as impediments. Landowners and urban park professionals perceived that limited resources were linked to limited implementation of management actions and that this could be addressed by seeking external support. Foresters acknowledged that lack of management action could lead to compositional shifts in forest communities and increase the abundance of invasive species, but that this could be addressed through education and implementation of specific management activities (Table 4). Professional foresters’ responses to questions on the jigsaw worksheets revealed the need for forest assessment and monitoring coupled with development of management goals and objectives (Table 5). Foresters suggested providing more education, encouraging neighbor-to-neighbor interactions, and providing funding to promote collaboration among neighbors to facilitate management at a watershed scale. Forester respondents agreed that harvesting timber and preserving ecosystem integrity could be made compatible by using best practices for harvest type and timing. Foresters emphasized the need for research, inventory data, education, and financial incentives to overcome barriers to ecosystem restoration (Table 5). On postworkshop surveys, all respondents continued to express concern for herbaceous diversity and water quality in forest ecosystems (postsurvey means are included in Table 2), although there were no significant changes compared with the preworkshop survey. Forest landowners and foresters indicated greater knowledge levels about forest structure and function, and landowners reported greater knowledge about herbaceous plants on postworkshop surveys. There were no significant changes in stakeholders’ likelihood to manage with ecosystem function as a primary goal between preand postparticipation surveys or to invest in understory restoration (possibly because initial responses were significantly greater than neutral). Although urban park managers continued to indicate concern about understory diversity and water quality as well as willingness to collaborate with neighbors, there were no significant changes in their Journal of Forestry • July 2014

331

Table 2. Mean responses on pre- and postworkshop surveys for landowners, foresters, and urban park managers.

Questions A. Landowner resources How much do you know about… Forest ecosystem structure and function? Herbaceous understory plants in the forest? How concerned are you about… Diversity of the understory plants in your forest? Water quality of streams in your forest? How likely are you to… Manage your forest with ecosystem function as a primary goal? Invest time and effort in forest understory restoration? Collaborate with neighboring forest landowners to achieve common goals? B. Forester responses How much do you know about… Forest ecosystem structure and function? Herbaceous understory plants in the forest? How concerned are you about… Diversity of the understory plants in your forest? Water quality of streams in your forest? How likely are you to… Manage or recommend managing forests with ecosystem function as a primary goal? Restore or recommend restoring understory species if needed? C. Urban park manager responses How much do you know about… Forest ecosystem structure and function? Herbaceous understory plants in the forest? How concerned are you about… Diversity of the understory plants in your forest? Water quality of streams in your forest? How likely are you to… Manage your forest with ecosystem function as a primary goal? Invest time and effort in forest understory restoration? Collaborate with neighboring forest landowners to achieve common goals?

n

Presurvey mean

n

Postsurvey mean

Postsurvey less presurvey mean

60 59

3.3 2.9

40 40

3.7a 3.3a

59 61

4.3a 4.6a

39 40

4.4a 4.6a

0.1 ⫺0.1

59 59 57

4.3a 4.2 3.3

40 40 40

4.0a 4.0a 3.3

⫺0.3 ⫺0.2 0.0

34 34

4.4a 3.6a

22 21

4.6a 4.0a

33 34

4.4a 4.7a

22 22

4.3a 4.5a

⫺0.1 ⫺0.2

33

4.1a

22

4.2a

0.1

34

a

4.3

22

a

4.2

⫺0.1

11 11

3.3 3.0

9 9

3.6 3.7

0.3 0.7

11 11

3.7a 4.3a

9 9

3.9a 4.3a

0.2 0.0

11 11 11

3.6a 3.9a 4.1a

9 9 9

3.2 3.6 3.8a

⫺0.4 ⫺0.3 ⫺0.3

0.4b 0.4b

0.2b 0.4

Rating scale where 1 ⫽ not at all knowledgeable, concerned, or likely and 5 ⫽ very knowledgeable, concerned, or likely. a Within-group means that are significantly different from neutral (3.0 on a 5-point scale). b Significant within-group differences between pre- and postworkshop responses.

responses between pre- and postparticipation surveys (Table 2). Overall there were only 3 items (of 20) for which pre- and postsurvey differences were significant (positive changes in knowledge among landowners and foresters), and although ratings declined somewhat for 9 items across the three groups, these changes were not statistically significant. Participants from all three groups most frequently identified invasive species control as a management activity they were considering in response to an open-ended question on the postworkshop survey (Table 6). Landowners and foresters also indicated that they were considering timber stand management and reforestation/planting activities. Activities frequently identified by urban park managers included learning more about the understory/how to identify understory species, as well as use of prescribed burning. In fact, relatively high proportions (from 95% for landowners to 67% for pro332


fessional foresters) indicated that they were considering management actions after their participation in the collaborative workshop. In response to an open-ended question about resources that would enable ecosystem restoration activities, landowners and urban park managers identified agency and nongovernment organization experts, assistance with cost (money/time/labor), and collaboration with other forest owners/neighbors. Foresters identified easy-to-use literature, cost-share programs, and data on the impacts of biodiversity as resources that could assist them in encouraging private landowners to implement management (Table 6).

Discussion The collaborative learning approach used in this project provided a structure for participants as they identified goals, learned from other participants and facilitators, and engaged in dialogue that included new information about understory plants and their

role in forest ecosystems, consistent with our conceptual workshop framework (Figure 1). Further, collaborative learning strategies engaged participants from all three stakeholder groups in examining their own goals in relation to larger landscape-scale challenges and motivating them to consider management changes. Finally, as facilitators, we gained valuable knowledge about real and perceived barriers to conducting forest understory restoration at a broader scale. We expect these interactions to create positive feedback effects as suggested in our conceptual framework. Success of Collaborative Learning Workshops with Forest Stakeholders Both before and after workshop participation, respondents from all three groups (landowners, foresters, and urban park managers) expressed concern about forest understory diversity and water quality in streams embedded within forests. Pre- and postpar-

Table 3. Landowner goals for their forests and landowner-identified forest ecosystem functions provided at larger landscape scales, as identified by participant small groups on Venn diagrams.

Sample responses Oak/walnut regeneration grazing; firewood; timber production; hunting Help nature Build access trails; recreation Provide for wildlife diversity; bird habitat; mast production Preserve native species; regeneration of plants and wildflowers Thin out undesirables; maintain wooded watershed; preserve quality; forest regeneration Reestablish species/native plants; restore from legacy of disturbance (grazing) Eliminate exotics; control natives Limit nutrient and water runoff; stream health; use buffers to limit inputs; minimize impact of livestock Erosion control; slope preservation; reduce erosion

Landowner goals for forest

Ecosystem services category

Landowner-identified forest functions

Sample responses

Generate income

Provisioning services

NA

NA

Connect with nature Provide recreational opportunities Provide for wildlife

Cultural services

Nature connection

Aesthetics; view; nature

Supporting services

Habitat

Provides wildlife habitat; part of a larger adjoining woodland system Biodiversity between forest and prairie

Protect biodiversity

Biodiversity

Protect forest health

Forest health

Restore natives

Structural diversity

Eliminate invasives Protect water quality Control erosion

Regulating services

Mature trees; tree disease and invasives; healthy understory of native plants; density of forest Structural diversity; good understory

Water quality protection

Dense vegetation to protect water quality; filter, slow down rain

Erosion control Air/climate mitigation Nutrient storage

Tendency for flooding/run-off; erosion control Oxygen and captures CO2; clean air Carbon sequestration; keeps nutrients in floor of forest

Examples of individual landowner responses are organized according to emerging themes for forest goals and forest functions corresponding to categories of ecosystem services as per the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). NA, not applicable.

about forest restoration. Several participants noted that they “had already conducted trial and error restoration efforts” in their municipalities.

Figure 3. Summary of the most frequent responses listed by small groups of forest landowners on Venn diagrams generated in collaborative workshops. Participants were asked to answer the question, “What are my goals for the characteristics of my forestland?” in the left circle, and the question, “What characteristics would contribute to forest ecosystem function at a landscape scale?” in the right circle.

ticipation survey responses indicated that the collaborative workshops helped forest landowners and foresters learn about forest ecosystem structure and function, and landowner participants also reported greater knowledge about herbaceous plants. Forest landowners and foresters also indicated a high likelihood of managing/recommending management of forests with ecosystem function as a primary goal. Use of placebased research to inform the workshops provided information about a “proximate problem” of interest to many participants (e.g.,

Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Although urban park managers did not indicate significant changes after workshop participation, their initially high level of interest substantiates previous reports of urban land managers’ actions to restore functioning natural areas in urban park systems (Lane and Raab 2002, Obrapta and Kallin 2007). Urban park managers reported somewhat greater knowledge about understory plants after participation (the small number of respondents precluded detecting significant changes), and expressed a strong desire to learn more

Participant Motivation to Consider Management Changes Although it has been suggested that interactive formats can lead to stakeholder learning and subsequent behavior change, there are relatively few reports in the literature describing specific strategies for structuring effective interaction. Our familiarity with the underlying principles of collaborative learning was based on experiences in faculty development groups over several years before offering these workshops. Our choice of specific collaborative learning strategies was based on their usefulness in a variety of classroom settings and their adaptability for different audiences. The strategies we used engaged all three stakeholder groups in focused and effective dialogue. For example, the Venn diagrams enabled landowners to identify important elements in common with other participants, as well as in a larger sense between their goals for forest ownership and larger-scale ecosystem functions. In response to a postworkshop open-ended question one landowner specifically appreciated “the opportunity to share problems and solve them together.” The categorizing grids assisted all participants with “sorting” inforJournal of Forestry • July 2014

333

Table 4. Most frequent obstacles, ramifications, and actions to address them identified by small groups of landowners, foresters, and urban park managers in a categorizing grid exercise during collaborative workshops for each group of stakeholders. First Landowners Potential obstacles that might limit ecosystem functioning in my forest Ramifications of this obstacle Goals/actions that address the potential obstacle Foresters Potential obstacles that might limit ecosystem functioning in forests where I work Ramifications of this obstacle Goals/actions that address the potential obstacle Urban park managers Potential obstacles that might limit ecosystem functioning in forests where I work Ramifications of this obstacle Goals/actions that address the potential obstacle

Table 5. Topic questions for large- and small-group discussion, and most frequent responses from small groups of professional foresters in the jigsaw activity during the collaborative workshop. A. How do we feasibly manage for understories? Assess current condition: environment, overstory; monitor Need management plan to identify (define) goals/ objectives B. How do we collaborate with neighbors for watershed management? Education and communication Neighbor-to-neighbor sharing, neighborhood coops, social pressure; watershed approach Cost share, find funding, make community aware of funding C. Can harvest be incorporated and not degrade the system? How? Know what’s present, understory and overstory; more research and a site-specific approach; monitor Best management practices: harvest timing (season, climate conditions); type of equipment Harvest selections, patch harvest (type of harvest); minimize scope and intensity D. How do we overcome barriers to restoring ecosystem function? Education, research, knowing what is present Funding, cost share, incentives, ecosystem payments; without money action cannot occur

mation in a way that could aid subsequent management decisionmaking. Finally, the jigsaw structure facilitated rapid exchange of knowledge among professional foresters and sent a signal that as facilitators we were interested in learning with them, rather than “imparting knowledge to them” (Daniels and Walker 1996). Because of resource constraints, we 334


Second

Third

Lack of time, money, labor

Erosion and water quality issues

Invasive species

Lack of management; frustration

Soil loss; nutrient loading and water pollution Protect water quality, wetlands, buffers

Reduces biodiversity, overtakes natives Control invasive species, restore natives

Owners who do not manage their forests Composition shift; invasive species; overstocking Education; active management

Deer population

Grazing (past and present)

Decreased biodiversity; heavy browse Deer herd management; increase deer harvest

Erosion; trampling; shift to undesirable species Limit grazing; fence streams

Lack of understanding/public perception No management; decreasing forest health Education (patrons, public)

Budget

Flooding

No funding for manpower, equipment Prioritize funding, seek alternatives

Spreads invasive species

Seek funding, external help, alternatives

were unable to test this approach directly by comparing outcomes from our workshops with those associated with a control group that participated in a traditional presentation format. However, based on our consistent use of and outcomes from collaborative learning in college classrooms, as well as evidence published elsewhere (Toman et al. 2006, Cross et al. 2013), we believe the productive dialogue generated in the workshops was helpful to participants and likely to lead to consideration of specific management actions. The fact that both a landowner and an urban park manager indicated they were “working with a local professional” to “identify plants and discuss management strategies” suggests that this is the case. In fact, relatively low proportions of participants (from 5% for landowners to 33% for professional foresters) indicated that they were not considering management actions after their participation in the collaborative workshop. New Perspectives Generated for Additional Research and Outreach As researchers with responsibility for outreach, we were interested in learning about barriers and impediments to forest management actions that would enable landowners and managers to achieve their goals. All three participant groups identified a common set of obstacles that limit ecosystem function: lack of management, lack of resources, and presence of invasive/nuisance species. All three groups were also able to

Protection via retention, detention, erosion control

identify actions to address these perceived obstacles, indicating that specific research and outreach efforts to promote these actions could lead to improvements in forest ecosystem integrity across a broad range of forest types and uses. As facilitators, we learned that additional research and outreach to landowners and land managers on these topics would be extremely valuable and aid them in solving management problems. For example, postworkshop survey responses indicated that all three groups were considering actions to control invasive species. Their interest in invasive/nuisance species management emerged from workshop interactions (facilitators did not initiate this discussion), and, if implemented, would promote multiple landowner and land manager goals related to aesthetics, habitat quality, potential for natural forest regeneration, and overall forest ecological function. This result suggests that additional research and more intensive outreach on this topic is needed. With respect to understory management in particular, one forester noted: “I have always considered understory plants as an indicator of the success/failure of my management and as indicators of past management.” During the workshop, professional foresters identified “easy-to-use” pocket guides and data summaries describing the role of biodiversity as resources that would assist them in recommending forest restoration activities. These items should be developed and offered to forest management pro-

Table 6. Landowner, forester, and urban park manager responses on postworkshop surveys to open-ended questions about management activities they were considering and resources that would be useful to assist them in implementation. Since your participation in the forest ecosystem workshop… Landowners What kinds of forest management activities are you considering? Can you identify any resources that could enable you to implement/recommend forest ecosystem restoration? Foresters What kinds of forest management activities are you considering? Can you identify any resources that could enable you to implement/recommend forest ecosystem restoration? Urban park managers What kinds of forest management activities are you considering? Can you identify any resources that could enable you to implement/recommend forest ecosystem restoration?

First

Second

Third

Invasive species control

Timber stand management

Reforestation/planting

Natural resource agency and NGO experts

Money/time/labor

Other forest landowners/neighbors


Timber stand management

Reforestation/planting

Easy-to-use literature, pocket guides

Cost-share/farm programs

Concrete data on impacts of biodiversity


Identification or learning more about the understory Natural resource agency and nongovernmental organization experts

Burning

Money/time/labor

fessionals (both rural and urban); as another participant noted, “foresters need ‘silvics for the understory’” to effectively manage that component of the ecosystem.

Conclusions Forest ecosystem management approaches that include attention to herbaceous flora could be instrumental in restoring and protecting biodiversity, improving nutrient retention, and protecting water quality throughout the Midwest. We used a collaborative learning framework and specific strategies to engage participants in identifying goals, learning from other participants and facilitators, and discussing new information about forest ecosystems that illustrates the important role of understory herbs. We include details about the strategies we used to increase the visibility of interactive strategies, so that others could adopt/adapt them for their own use. We conducted workshops with stakeholder groups who we expected would have a strong conservation ethic, but who were probably unaware of the functional significance of the herbaceous layer. Our workshop structure was grounded in adult learning theory, indicating the strong potential of the strategies we used for promoting learning. The collaborative workshop format also linked participants via coconstruction of knowledge with others who may have similar goals. The pre- and postparticipation survey data we collected provide evidence for modest yet significant increases in knowledge, and on open-ended questions many partici-

pants indicated their intent to engage in new kinds of forest management activities. Given the growing number of forest landowners and the growing proportion of them with broad goals that include restoring and protecting ecosystem integrity, researchers and outreach professionals should continue to provide information via collaborative learning to support additional landowner learning and subsequent actions. Finally, although our workshops were “one-time events,” adult learning theory also suggests that sustained interaction could produce deeper understanding. Our intent, based on ongoing research to develop best practices for restoration and management of the forest herbaceous layer, is to provide additional outreach to meet these stakeholders’ needs.

Literature Cited ANGELO, T.A., AND K.P. CROSS. 1993. Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers, 2nd ed. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA. 427 p. BELLEMARE, J., G. MOTZKIN, AND D.R. FOSTER. 2002. Legacies of the agricultural past in the forested present: An assessment of historical land-use effects on rich mesic forests. J. Biogeogr. 29:1401–1420. COLAIZZI, P. 1978. Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. P. 48 –71 in Existential-phenomenological alternatives for psychology, Valle, R., and M. King (eds.). Oxford University Press, New York. CROSS, M.S., P.D. MCCARTHY, G. GARFIN, D. GORI, AND C.A.F. ENQUIST. 2013. Accelerating adaptation of natural resource management to address climate change. Conserv. Biol. 27(1):4 –13.

Other forest landowners and neighbors

DANIELS, S., AND G. WALKER. 1996. Collaborative learning: Improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management. Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 16:71–102. DAVIS, M.L., E. STEINER, AND J.M. FLY. 2010. Do you hear what I hear: Better understanding how forest management is conceptualized and practiced by private forest landowners. J. For. 108:321–328. DILLMAN, D.A. 2008. Internet, mail, and mixedmode surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ. 512 p. DUTCHER, D.D., J.C. FINLEY, A.E. LULOFF, AND J. JOHNSON. 2004. Landowner perceptions of protecting and establishing riparian forests: A qualitative analysis. Soc. Nat. Res. 17:329 – 342. EILERS, L., AND D. ROOSA. 1994. The vascular plants of Iowa. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, IA. 319 p. FLYNN, D.F.B., M. GOGOL-PROKURAT, T. NOGEIRE, N. MOLINARI, B.T. RICHERS, B.B. LIN, N. SIMPSON, M.M. MAYFIELD, AND F. DECLERCK. 2009. Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa. Ecol. Lett. 12:22–33. GERKEN, M.E., J.R. THOMPSON, AND C.M. MABRY. 2010. Restoring nutrient capture in forest herbaceous layers of the Midwest. Ecol. Restor. 28:14 –17. GERKEN GOLAY, M.E., J.R. THOMPSON, C.M. MABRY, AND R.K. KOLKA. 2013. An investigation of water nutrient levels associated with forest vegetation in highly altered landscapes. J. Soil Water Conserv. 68:361–371. GILLIAM, F.S. 2007. The ecological significance of the herbaceous layer in temperate forest ecosystems. BioScience 57:845– 858. GOMI, T., R.C. SIDLE, AND J.S. RICHARDSON. 2002. Understanding processes and downstream linkages of headwater systems. BioScience 52:905–916. Journal of Forestry • July 2014

335

HULL, R.B., D.P. ROBERTSON, AND G.J. BUHYOFF. 2004. “Boutique” forestry—New forest practices in urbanizing landscapes. J. For. 102:14 –19. HUSTON, M.A. 2005. The three phases of landuse change: Implications for biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 15:1864 –1878. JOHNSON, D.W., R.T. JOHNSON, AND K.A. SMITH. 1991. Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHEERIC Higher Educ. Rep. 20(4), The George Washington University Press, Washington, DC. 172 p. JONES, S.B., A.E. LULOFF, AND J.C. FINLEY. 1995. Another look at NIPFS—Facing our myths. J. For. 93:41– 44. KEEN, M., AND S. MAHANTY. 2005. Collaborative learning: Bridging scales and interests. P. 104 – 120 in Social learning in environmental management: Towards a sustainable future, Keen, M., V.A. Brown, and R. Dyball (eds.). Earthscan Publications, Sterling, VA. KNOOT, T.G., L.A. SCHULTE, N. GRUDENSSCHUCK, AND M. RICKENBACH. 2009. The changing social landscape in the Midwest: A boon for forestry and bust for oak? J. For. 107: 260 –266. KUIPERS, B.T., G.C. SHIVAN, AND K. POTTERWITTER. 2013. Identifying appropriate communication means for reaching nonindustrial private forest landowners. J. For. 111:34 – 41.

336


LANE, C., AND S. RAAB. 2002. Great river greening: A case study in urban woodland restoration. Ecol. Restor. 20:243–251. LEATHERBERRY, E.C., G.J. BRAND, AND S. PENNINGTON. 2005. Iowa’s forest resources in 2003. USDA For. Serv., Resour. Bull. NC-240, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN. Available online at nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/ 3041; last accessed May 28, 2013. LOEB, R.E. 1987. The tragedy of the commons— Can urban foresters save city parks? J. For. 85: 29 –33. MARZANO, R.J., D.J. PICKERING, AND J.E. POLLOCK. 2001. Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA. 178 p. MCCAFFREY, S.M. 2004. Fighting fire with education: What is the best way to reach out to homeowners? J. For. 102:12–19. MEASHAM, T.G. 2013. How long does social learning take? Insights from a longitudinal case study. Soc. Natur. Resour. 26:1468 –1477. MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: A report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. World Health Organization, Albany, NY. 64 p. NAEEM, S., L.J. THOMPSON, S.P. LAWLER, J.H. LAWTON, AND R.M. WOODFIN. 1995. Empirical evidence that declining species diversity may alter the performance of terrestrial ecosystems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. 347:249 –262.

OBRAPTA, C.C., AND P.L. KALLIN. 2007. The restoration of an urban floodplain in Rahway, New Jersey. Ecol. Restor. 25:175–182. POTTS, R., E. GUSTAFSON, S.I. STEWART, F.R. THOMPSON, K. BERGEN, D.G. BROWN, R. HAMMER, ET AL. 2004. The Changing Midwest Assessment: Land cover, natural resources, and people. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-250, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN. Available online at nrs.fs.fed.us/ pubs/3346; last accessed May 28, 2013. SCHUSLER, T.M., D.J. DECKER, AND M.J. PFEFFER. 2003. Social learning for collaborative natural resource management. Soc. Natur. Resour. 15:309 –326. SELIN, S.W., C. PIERSKALLA, D. SMALDONE, AND K. ROBINSON. 2007. Social learning and building trust through a participatory design for natural resource planning. J. For. 105:421– 425. THOMPSON, J.R. 1992. Prairies, forests, and wetlands: The restoration of natural landscapes in Iowa. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, IA. 168 p. TOMAN, E., B. SHINDLER, AND M. BRUNSON. 2006. Fire and fuel management communication strategies: Citizen evaluations of agency outreach programs. Soc. Natur. Resour. 19: 321–336. WONDOLLECK, J., AND S.L. YAFFEE. 2000. Why collaboration? In Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington, DC. 277 p.