↓ Skip to main content

Visions of Restoration in Fire-Adapted Forest Landscapes: Lessons from the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
Visions of Restoration in Fire-Adapted Forest Landscapes: Lessons from the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
Published in
Environmental Management, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00267-016-0791-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren S. Urgenson, Clare M. Ryan, Charles B. Halpern, Jonathan D. Bakker, R. Travis Belote, Jerry F. Franklin, Ryan D. Haugo, Cara R. Nelson, Amy E.M. Waltz

Abstract

Collaborative approaches to natural resource management are becoming increasingly common on public lands. Negotiating a shared vision for desired conditions is a fundamental task of collaboration and serves as a foundation for developing management objectives and monitoring strategies. We explore the complex socio-ecological processes involved in developing a shared vision for collaborative restoration of fire-adapted forest landscapes. To understand participant perspectives and experiences, we analyzed interviews with 86 respondents from six collaboratives in the western U.S., part of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program established to encourage collaborative, science-based restoration on U.S. Forest Service lands. Although forest landscapes and group characteristics vary considerably, collaboratives faced common challenges to developing a shared vision for desired conditions. Three broad categories of challenges emerged: meeting multiple objectives, collaborative capacity and trust, and integrating ecological science and social values in decision-making. Collaborative groups also used common strategies to address these challenges, including some that addressed multiple challenges. These included use of issue-based recommendations, field visits, and landscape-level analysis; obtaining support from local agency leadership, engaging facilitators, and working in smaller groups (sub-groups); and science engagement. Increased understanding of the challenges to, and strategies for, developing a shared vision of desired conditions is critical if other collaboratives are to learn from these efforts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Estonia 1 <1%
Unknown 111 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 21%
Student > Master 19 17%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Other 7 6%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 30 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 39 35%
Social Sciences 14 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 33 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 February 2017.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#1,476
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,270
of 311,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#16
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,950 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.