Abstract
The proliferation of destructive wildfires in the western USA has made apparent the need to reevaluate forest management and related agency and business practices. This has resulted in a variety of policies and practices to enhance the utilization of woody biomass generated from associated fuel reduction efforts. The USDA Forest Service, for instance, is increasingly forming partnerships with local collaborative groups to encourage entrepreneurial investments to facilitate those fuel reduction efforts. These alliances among communities, non-profit organizations, and businesses illustrate elements of network governance in the way they coordinate actions and mobilize and exchange resources to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes. Few empirical studies, with regard to forest energy, have examined how these networks of loosely affiliated actors coordinate and mobilize resources to influence related state and federal policy, or the barriers to effective enterprise development. We draw upon network governance literature to examine four dimensions of these alliances: heterogeneity, integration, network structure, and operating function. This framework is applied to forest biomass utilization policy decisions in Northern California, a area experiencing repeated record-breaking wildfire events. Finally, we explore ways in which these governance attributes could impact the broader forest biomass industry and provide implications for future research.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agrawal A, Chhatre A, Hardin R (2008) Changing governance of the world’s forests. Science (New York, NY) 320(5882):1460–1462. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155369
Aguilar F, Garrett G (2009) Perspectives of woody biomass for energy: survey of state foresters, state energy biomass contacts, and National Council of Forestry Association Executives. J For 107(6):297–306. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/107.6.297
Arts B (2014) Assessing forest governance from a ‘Triple g’ perspective: government, governance, governmentality. Forest Policy Econ 49:17–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.05.008
Becker DR, Larson D, Lowell EC (2009) Financial considerations of policy options to enhance biomass utilization for reducing wildfire hazards. Forest Policy Econ 11(8):628–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.08.007
Becker DR, McCaffrey SM, Abbas D, Halvorsen KE, Jakes P et al (2011) Conventional wisdoms of woody biomass utilization on federal public lands. Journal of Forestry. https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/38476 (December 29, 2019)
Benzer JK, Beehler S, Cramer IE, Mohr DC, Charns MP et al (2013) Between and within-site variation in qualitative implementation research. Implement Sci 8:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-4
Berkes F (2002) Cross-scale institutional linkages: perspectives from the bottom up. In The drama of the commons, Washington DC: National Academy Press. https://www.nap.edu/read/10287/chapter/1 (August 17, 2020)
Bixler PR, Wald DM, Ogden LA, Leong KM, Johnston EW et al (2016) Network governance for large-scale natural resource conservation and the challenge of capture. Front Ecol Environ 14(3):165–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1252
Bodin Ö, Crona B, Ernstson H (2006) Social networks in natural resource management: what is there to learn from a structural perspective? Ecol Soc 11(2):r2. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/resp2/
Börzel TA (1998) Organizing Babylon - on the different conceptions of policy networks. Public Administration 76(2):253–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00100
CalFire (2020) Top 20 largest California wildfires. https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/4jandlhh/top20_acres.pdf
California Natural Resources Agency (2017) S.B. 859 Wood Products Working Group | California Natural Resources Agency. http://resources.ca.gov/climate/s-b-859-wood-products-working-group/ (July 29, 2019)
California Natural Resources Agency (2019) Forests. Retrieved July 29, 2019 (http://resources.ca.gov/forests/)
Carleton LE, Becker DR (2018) Forest biomass policy in Minnesota: supply chain perspectives on barriers to bioenergy development. Forests 9(5):254. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9050254
Carlsson LG, Sandström AC (2007) Network governance of the commons. Int J Commons 2(1):33. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.20
CBEA (2020) Facilities Map:California Biomass Energy Alliance. Cal Biomass. Retrieved November 13, 2020 http://www.calbiomass.org/facilities-map/
Clark D (2020) Rep. LaMalfa seeks greater wildfire aid for California. Homeland Preparedness News. https://homelandprepnews.com/stories/54662-rep-lamalfa-seeks-greater-wildfire-aid-for-california/ (August 28, 2020).
Courtney RA (2018) Network governance in the heritage ecology. J Manag Gov 22(3):689–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-017-9399-z
Domac RK, Risovic S (2005) Socio-economic drivers in implementing bioenergy projects. Biomass Bioenergy 28(2):97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.08.002
Forest Management Task Force (2019) Tree Mortality Working Group. https://fmtf.fire.ca.gov/working-groups/tree-mortality/ (July 29, 2019)
Gan J, Cashore B (2013) Opportunities and challenges for integrating bioenergy into sustainable forest management certification programs. J For 111(1):11–16. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.11-092
Given LM (2015) 100 Questions (and Answers) About Qualitative Research. Australia: SAGE Publications, Inc. http://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/100-questions-and-answers-about-qualitative-research/book242528. Accessed 3 May 2021
Head BW (2008) Assessing network-based collaborations. Public Manag Rev 10(6):733–749. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802423087
Isett K, Provan KG (2002) The evolution of interorganizational network relationships over time: does sector matter? Acad Manag Proc 2002:C1–C6. https://doi.org/10.5465/APBPP.2002.7519436
Jedd T, Bixler PR (2015) Accountability in networked governance: learning from a case of landscape-scale forest conservation. Environ Policy Gov 25(3):172–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1670
Johnson N (2019) What if the answer to California’s wildfire woes is more fire? Grist. https://grist.org/article/why-california-is-fighting-fire-with-fire/ (August 28, 2020)
Kivimaa P (2014) Government-Affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions. Res Policy 43(8):1370–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.007
Klijn EH (2008) Governance and governance networks in Europe: an assessment of ten years of research on the theme. Public Manag Rev 10(4):505–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802263954
Klijn EH (2009) Networks and inter-organizational management: challenging, steering, evaluation, and the role of public actors in public management. in The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199226443.003.0012
Koliba C, Meek JW, Zia A (2011) Governance networks in public administration and public policy. CRC Press https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315268620
Lam, Kristen (2019) Northern California town of paradise lost 90% of its population after camp fire, data shows. USA TODAY. Retrieved July 22, 2019 (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/07/11/paradise-california-population-camp-fire-california-wildfire-fund/1710525001/)
Legislative Counsel’s Digest (2012) SB-1122 energy: renewable bioenergy projects. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1122 (August 28, 2020)
Legislative Counsel’s Digest (2018) SB-901 Wildfires. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB901 (August 28, 2020)
Malmsheimer R, Heffernan P, Brink S, Crandall D, Deneke F et al (2008) Forest management solutions for mitigating climate change in the United States. J Forest 106(3)
Mattor KM, Cheng AS (2015) Contextual factors influencing collaboration levels and outcomes in national forest stewardship contracting. Rev Policy Res 32(6):723–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12151
Moritz MA, Batllori EB, Bradstock RA, Gill MA, Handmer J et al (2014) Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature 515(7525):58–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13946
Nicholls DL, Halbrook JM, Benedum ME, Han HS, Lowell EC et al (2018) Socioeconomic constraints to biomass removal from forest lands for fire risk reduction in the Western U.S. Forests 9(5):264. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9050264
Poocharoen O, Sovacool BK (2012) Exploring the challenges of energy and resources network governance. Energy Policy 42:409–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.12.005
Pretty J (2003) Social capital and the collective management of resources. Am Assoc Adv Sci 302(5652):1912–1914. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1090847
Provan KG, Kenis P (2008) Modes of network governance: structure, management, and effectiveness. J Public Adm Res Theory 18(2):229–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015
Provan KG, Milward H (1995) A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: a comparative study of four community mental health systems. Adm Sci Q 40:1–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393698
Reagans R, Zuckerman EW (2001) Networks, diversity, and productivity: the social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organ Sci 12(4):502–517. Accessed May 3, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3085985
Rhodes RAW (1996) The new governance: governing without government. Polit Stud 44(4):652–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x
Rhodes RAW (2017) 1 Network Governance and the Differentiated Polity: Selected Essays. 1st ed. University of Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online. https://www-oxfordscholarship-com.colorado.idm.oclc.org/view/10.1093/oso/9780198786108.001.0001/oso-9780198786108-chapter-3. Accessed 3 Oct 2019
Robins G, Bates L, Pattison P (2011) Network governance and environmental management: conflict and cooperation. Public Adm 89(4):1293–1313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01884.x
Sandström A (2008) Policy Networks: The Relation between Structure and Performance. Doctoral Thesis. Luleå University of Technology
SB 859 (Senate Bill 859), authored by Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review
Sherman F (2019) What is the purpose of nonprofit organizations? Retrieved September 6, 2019 (https://smallbusiness.chron.com/purpose-nonprofit-organizations-56562.html)
Southern California Edison (2016) Biofuel renewable auction mechanism (BioRAM) RFO. http://origin.sce.com/procurement/solicitations/bioram (August 28, 2020)
Stidham M, Simon-Brown V (2011) Stakeholder perspectives on converting forest biomass to energy in Oregon, USA. Biomass Bioenergy 35(1):203–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.08.014
Tree Mortality Task Force (2018) Tree Mortality: Facts and Figures. California. Online. https://acconsensus.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TMFacts_and_Figures_April_2018.pdf
University of California (2020) California forests. Retrieved July 29, 2019 (https://ucanr.edu/sites/forestry/California_forests)
USDA (2007) Woody Biomass Utilization Desk Guide. Retrieved December 29, 2019 https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/documents/woody-biomass/biomass_deskguide.pdf
USDA (2020) About the Agency | US Forest Service. U.S. Forest Service. Retrieved September 6, 2019 (https://www.fs.fed.us/about-agency)
Wüstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Bürer MJ (2007) Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35(5):2683–2691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001
Funding
Funding for this analysis was provided under USDA Cooperative Agreement number 58-0111-17-008.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Edited by Luna Khirfan and communicated by Wolfgang Cramer
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Benedum, M.E., Becker, D.R. Using a network governance framework to assess the wood energy industry in times of catastrophic wildfire in Northern California. Reg Environ Change 21, 51 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-021-01779-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-021-01779-x