Institutional,Individual, and Socio-Cultural Domains of Partnerships: A Typology of USDA Forest Service Recreation Partners |
| |
Authors: | Erin Seekamp Lee K Cerveny Allie McCreary |
| |
Institution: | (1) Department of Forestry, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 1205 Lincoln Drive, MC 4411, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA;(2) PNW Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 400 N. 34th Street, Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103, USA |
| |
Abstract: | Federal land management agencies, such as the USDA Forest Service, have expanded the role of recreation partners reflecting
constrained growth in appropriations and broader societal trends towards civic environmental governance. Partnerships with
individual volunteers, service groups, commercial outfitters, and other government agencies provide the USDA Forest Service
with the resources necessary to complete projects and meet goals under fiscal constraints. Existing partnership typologies
typically focus on collaborative or strategic alliances and highlight organizational dimensions (e.g., structure and process)
defined by researchers. This paper presents a partner typology constructed from USDA Forest Service partnership practitioners’
conceptualizations of 35 common partner types. Multidimensional scaling of data from unconstrained pile sorts identified 3
distinct cultural dimensions of recreation partners—specifically, partnership character, partner impact, and partner motivations—that
represent institutional, individual, and socio-cultural cognitive domains. A hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis provides
further insight into the various domains of agency personnel’s conceptualizations. While three dimensions with high reliability
(RSQ = 0.83) and corresponding hierarchical clusters illustrate commonality between agency personnel’s partnership suppositions,
this study also reveals variance in personnel’s familiarity and affinity for specific partnership types. This real-world perspective
on partner types highlights that agency practitioners not only make strategic choices when selecting and cultivating partnerships
to accomplish critical task, but also elect to work with partners for the primary purpose of providing public service and
fostering land stewardship. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 PubMed SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|