Benefits of participation in a community of practice focused on evaluation and programmatic improvement for environmental educators.

One of the biggest challenges environmental education (EE) practitioners face is having timely and systematically-collected evaluation data to inform the design and improvement of existing programs. One potential way to provide systematic evaluations of programs and build evaluation capacity for practitioners is through a facilitated community of practice (CoP). We developed a CoP involving 37 organizations who were pivoting to online EE programs within the United States due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our goals were to build organizational capacity in evaluation and adaptive management to improve these organizations' online EE programs. We describe our CoP design, challenges associated with its implementation, and the benefits reported by participants in the CoP. Participants reported that they improved their evaluation skills and attitudes towards evaluation and developed social capital with a new network of colleagues. They also reported positive changes in practice, both individually and organizationally; considered new outcomes for their programs; and learned about using evaluation data to systematically improve programs. Educators shared their learning both within and outside of their organizations. Those who were more regularly involved in this community reported more positive benefits than others who were less involved. We share our reflections on the process and make suggestions for other evaluators to consider in similar CoP designs.

A culturally responsive evaluation framework and its application in environmental education.

Despite the many challenges inherent in conducting high-quality evaluations in the field of environmental education (EE), there is a growing recognition of the importance of evaluation, not only to gauge program success, but also to use evaluation results to improve programming, support organizational learning, and ensure programs are meeting the needs of diverse audiences. The challenges to conducting high-quality evaluations are exacerbated by historical issues of inequity and systemic racism that are pervasive in the United States and globally. We reviewed the literature on culturally responsive approaches to evaluation to propose a culturally responsive evaluation framework and consider its application in EE. This framework helps EE organizations and evaluators consider how issues of race, power, privilege, and inequity influence the evaluation process and the validity of evaluation findings. Implementing this framework may be resource-intensive, but it has the potential to improve evaluation processes and produce actionable results to further address issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the field of EE. We call for organizations that support EE efforts to recognize the importance of this approach, and provide adequate resources to encourage its implementation.

Addressing identity-related barriers to collaboration for conservation through self-affirmation theory and moral foundations theory.

The natural resource management literature documents many reasons for pursuing collaborative processes, offering useful insights on how to manage conflict and facilitate productive deliberation in complex multistakeholder collaborative efforts. Moral foundations theory and self-affirmation theory can further help collaborative efforts mitigate conflicts caused by identity threats and the identity-protective reasoning these threats provoke. Moral foundations theory suggests an approach to increase collaboration by minimizing triggering language and helping people appreciate opposing viewpoints. Self-affirmation theory suggests a practical intervention that could be used to increase collaboration by desensitizing people to identity threats and reducing defensiveness. Taken together, these theories can contribute substantially to the understanding and practice of collaboration and conflict management for conservation.

Consideración de las Barreras Relacionadas con la Identidad que Enfrenta la Colaboración para la Conservación a través de la Teoría de Autoafirmación y la Teoría de Fundamentos Morales Resumen La literatura sobre el manejo de recursos naturales documenta muchas razones por las que es necesario buscar procesos colaborativos, los cuales ofrecen conocimiento útil sobre cómo manejar el conflicto. Estos procesos también facilitan la deliberación productiva dentro de los esfuerzos colaborativos complejos en los cuales participan múltiples actores. La teoría de fundamentos morales puede ayudar a que los esfuerzos colaborativos mitiguen los conflictos causados por las amenazas a la identidad y el razonamiento de protección de identidad que estas amenazas provocan. La teoría de fundamentos morales propone una estrategia para incrementar la colaboración al minimizar el lenguaje detonante y ayudar a que las personas aprecien los puntos de vista contrarios. La teoría de autoafirmación sugiere una intervención práctica que podría usarse para incrementar la colaboración al desensibilizar a las personas a tal grado que identifiquen amenazas y reduzcan la actitud defensiva. En conjunto, estas teorías pueden contribuir sustancialmente al entendimiento y la práctica de la colaboración y el manejo de conflictos para la conservación.

Risk tradeoffs in adaptive ecosystem management: the case of the U.S. Forest Service.

Natural resource planning processes on public lands in the United States are driven in large part by the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which dictates general processes for analyzing and disclosing the likely impacts of proposed actions. The outcomes of these processes are the result of multiple factors, many related to the manifold smaller incremental decisions made by agency personnel directing the processes. Through interviews with decision makers, team leaders, and team members on five NEPA processes within the U.S. Forest Service, this study examines those incremental decisions. Risk, in particular external relationship risk, emerged as a dominant lens through which agency personnel weigh and make process-related decisions. We discuss the tradeoffs associated with agency actors' emphasis on this form of risk and their potential implications for adaptive ecosystem management and organizational performance.

The importance of team functioning to natural resource planning outcomes.

In its recent history, the U.S. Forest Service is among many federal land management agencies struggling with questions concerning why its planning procedures are sometimes inefficient, perform poorly in the eyes of the public, and fail to deliver outputs that advance agency mission. By examining a representative sample of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes conducted by the agency between 2007 and 2009, we provide new insights into what drives outcomes in these planning processes. We examined team leaders' perceptions of the following outcomes: achievement of agency goals and NEPA mandates, process efficiency, public relations, and team outcomes. The most consistently important predictors of positive outcomes were team harmony and a clearly empowered team leader. Other factors, such as perceptions of the use of best science, a clear and unambiguous purpose and need, team turnover (personnel changes during the process), extra-agency engagement, and intra-agency relations, were also important, but played a less consistent role. The findings suggest the importance of empowering team leaders and team members through enhancing elements of discretion, responsibility, clear role definition, collaborative interdisciplinary deliberation, and perceived self-efficacy. The results also suggest the importance of genuine concern and respect for participating publics and effective inter-agency coordination.

The use of recreation planning tools in U.S. Forest Service NEPA assessments.

U.S. Forest Service managers are required to incorporate social and biophysical science information in planning and environmental analysis. The use of science is mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, and U.S. Forest Service planning rules. Despite the agency's emphasis on 'science-based' decision-making, little is known about how science is actually used in recreation planning and management. This study investigated the perceptions of Forest Service interdisciplinary (ID) team leaders for 106 NEPA projects dealing with recreation and travel management between 2005 and 2008. Our survey data show how managers rate the importance of social and biophysical science compared to other potential 'success factors' in NEPA assessments. We also explore how team leaders value and use multi-disciplinary tools for recreation-related assessments. Results suggest that managers employ a variety of recreation planning tools in NEPA projects, but there appears to be no common understanding or approach for how or when these tools are incorporated. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) was the most frequently used planning tool, but the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework was the most consistently valued tool by those who used it. We recommend further evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each planning tool and future development of procedures to select appropriate planning tools for use in recreation-related NEPA assessments.

The meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act within the U.S. Forest Service.

We conducted a survey of 3321 Forest Service employees involved in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) followed by five focus groups to investigate agency views of the purpose of agency NEPA processes and their appropriate measures of success. Results suggest the lack of a unified critical task for Forest Service NEPA processes and that employees' functions relevant to NEPA influence their views of its meaning. Compared to other agency personnel, members of interdisciplinary teams who carry out most day-to-day NEPA-related tasks placed greater emphasis on minimizing negative environmental and social impacts, satisfying multiple stakeholders and avoiding litigation and appeals. Line officers, who typically serve as the decision makers following NEPA processes, placed greatest emphasis on efficient implementation and least emphasis on minimizing impacts. Advisory personnel placed greatest emphasis on effective disclosure of analyses and decision-making. We discuss the structural origins of these differences as well as their implications.

From the office to the field: areas of tension and consensus in the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act within the US Forest Service.

We conducted an online survey (n = 3321) followed by five focus groups with Forest Service employees involved in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to explore agency views of how NEPA should be implemented within the agency. We filter these perceptions through the lenses of different functional groups within the agency, each with its own role in agency compliance with NEPA and its own suite of perceived accountabilities. In doing so, we uncover areas of consensus regarding valued practices as well as tensions between employees with different roles in NEPA compliance. General consensus exists regarding the importance of the effective functioning of interdisciplinary teams, but opinions about what constitutes an effective team vary. Findings suggest that NEPA serves as a playing field for competing accountabilities felt by line officers, disciplinary specialists, and advisory personnel within the agency, as each attempts to exert influence over NEPA processes and their outcomes.