Table 2. Overview of projects, participants, and use of local ecological knowledge and conventional science in 24 projects of the seven community-based forestry (CBF) groups studied.

CBF group Project Who was involved? Use of local ecological knowledge Use of conventional science
AFWH Mushroom monitoring Local mushroom pickers Harvester knowledge of location of species and impact of harvest

Collected photo point data and compiled mushroom identification notebook

Scientifically trained CBF staff trained harvesters to collect biophysical data, photo points
Weed removal and monitoring Local NTFP harvesters Forest workers’ knowledge of location and extent of weeds, working to locate and pull weeds in nonherbicide treatments†,§ CBF is part of a bioregional working group on noxious weeds

Networking and sharing removal methods

Scientifically trained CBF staff trained members to collect biophysical data
Cave Junction forest worker training in field methods Local forest workers
Scientist consultant

CBF staff
Forest workers’ knowledge of the landscape| Scientist consultant trained forest workers in field data collection methods to increase job skills
 
FSC Oral history project Community

University researcher
Local residents’ knowledge of land-use history, species†,¶ NA
Goat agroforestry project Local residents
CBF staff
Local resident’s knowledge of animal husbandry CBF group provided local people with information and training about agroforestry and forest management plans
 
JBC Mill Site #1 fuels treatment project Community youth

Agencies

Scientist consultants

CBF staff
CBF staff knowledge of stand dynamics and effects of fire# Agencies contributed to and approved stand prescriptions

Scientist consultant trained locals and directed monitoring project using standardized protocols‡,††
Mill Site #2 fuels treatment project Community youth

Agencies

Scientist consultants

CBF staff
CBF staff knowledge of stand dynamics and effects of fire# U.S. Forest Service contributed to and approved stand prescriptions
Scientist consultant trained locals and directed monitoring project using standardized protocols‡,††
 
PLP Uncompaghre Plateau Project watershed assessment and monitoring Local residents and loggers

U.S. Forest Service

Environmental organizations

CBF staff

Scientist consultants
Local residents’ and loggers’ knowledge of ecosystem functioning and effects of fire

Participated in planning meetings and analysis of data†,§
U.S. Forest Service and scientists from environmental organizations contributed to management activities

Scientist consultants designed monitoring and assessment††,‡‡
Burn Canyon project and monitoring Local residents and loggers

U.S. Forest Service environmentalist

CBF staff

University scientists
Local residents’ and loggers’ knowledge of ecosystem status and process and effects of fire

Participated in planning meetings and analysis of data†,§
U.S. Forest Service and university scientists helped design salvage logging treatments and conducted monitoring project††,‡‡
Oral history project Community
CBF staff
Local residents’ and ranchers’ knowledge of land use history and effects of fire†,§,¶ NA
 
WR Upper Joseph Creek watershed assessment Local landowners, loggers, and ranchers

Many federal and state agencies

Local tribes

University scientist

Interest group

CBF staff
Ranchers’ knowledge of grasslands and range management

Loggers’ knowledge of forest and forest management

Tribes’ traditional knowledge of watershed functioning and management†,§
Agency personnel involved in each monitoring subteam

University scientist involved in design and analysis of data††,‡‡
Aspen and landbird habitat monitoring Local field technicians

Federal agency

Scientist consultant

CBF staff
CBF staff knowledge of the habitats and threats

Local field technicians’ knowledge of the landscape and habitats|
Scientist consultant and agency personnel contributed to the design and analysis of data for project monitoring‡,††
Haypen fuels thinning project Local residents

Agencies

Interest groups

CBF staff
Local residents’ knowledge of impacts of fuels thinning project and vegetation# Agency personnel involved in multiparty monitoring project‡‡
Buck stewardship project CBF staff

Agencies

Interest groups

Scientist consultant
CBF staff knowledge# Scientist consultant contributed to data collection and analysis of monitoring project

Agencies provided scientific oversight for data collected and applied recommendations to management††,§§
Wallowa Lake wildland–urban interface project Local residents

Agency

CBF staff
Local residents’ knowledge of landscape and effects of mixed land use# Agency personnel involved in multiparty monitoring project‡‡,§§
Weed monitoring CBF staff

Agencies

Environmental organizations

Local residents
Local residents’ knowledge of location and extent of weeds

CBF staff knowledge
Agency and environmental organization scientists collaborate with CBF group weed coordinator on invasive species biology and treatment‡‡
Lynx survey Local contractors

Agency

CBF staff
Local contractors’ knowledge of lynx habitat and presence/absence| CBF staff scientist trained local contractors in data collection

Agency provided oversight

Scientist consultant hired for quality control of data collection by contractors‡,††,§§
Eagle survey Local contractors

Agency

CBF staff
Local contractors’ knowledge of eagle habitat and presence/absence| CBF staff scientist trained local contractors in data collection

Agency provided oversight‡,§§
Grouse survey High school students

Agency

CBF staff
Local contractors’ knowledge of grouse habitat and presence/absence| CBF staff scientist trained local contractors in data collection

Agency provided oversight‡,§§
 
WRTC Ecosystem management training team inventories Local trainees

Agencies

Scientist consultants

CBF staff
Local trainees’ knowledge of landscape features and habitat| CBF staff scientists trained local people in data collection and ecosystem management

Agency provided scientific oversight‡,§§
Chopsticks fuels treatment project and monitoring Local trainees

University researcher

CBF staff
CBF staff knowledge of forest management and fuel treatments

Local trainees knowledge of landscape features and habitat
Scientist consultant hired to train local people and to design, collect, and analyze monitoring data‡,††
NTFP assessment and harvest inventory and research Local NTFP harvesters

University researcher

CBF staff
Harvesters’ knowledge of medicinal plant location and the extent and impacts of harvest contributed to the design and collection of data for inventory and research projects†,§,¶ CBF staff scientist hired to train local people and to design, collect, and analyze research data‡,††
Post Mountain stewardship collaborative project and monitoring Localresidents

Agencies

Interest groups

Consulting forester

CBF staff
Local residents’ knowledge of their forest and effects of fire and fuels treatment

Multiparty planning and implementation of forest stand treatments

Local residents trained to collect data for monitoring project
Agency personnel involved in multi-party planning and implementation of forest stand treatments, consulting forester and CBF staff trained local people and designed and collected monitoring data‡,††, ‡‡
 
VFF Development of Forest Stewardship Council Criteria and Indicators for Forest certification Local landowners

Environmental groups

Agencies

CBF staff
Local landowners’ knowledge of forest and forest management, habitat

Involved in development of forest certification criteria for the region
Scientists from agencies and environmental groups involved in the development of forest certification criteria for the region‡‡
AFWH – Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters
FSC – Federation of Southern Cooperatives Forest Legacy Program
JBC – Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition
PLP – Public Lands Partnership
WR – Wallowa Resources
WRTC – Watershed Research and Training Center
VFF – Vermont Family Forests
NTFP – Nontimber forest product(s)
 
One of 13 projects in which the use of LEK clearly contributed to the final product.
One of 14 projects in which conventional scientists trained local people in standardized data collection methods.
§One of six projects in which the CBF group sought the involvement of local tribes or that incorporate traditional ecological knowledge.
|One of six projects in which the main responsibility of the local people was collecting field data.
One of three projects in which the documentation of LEK was a primary focus.
#One of five projects in which the local people involved were mainly staff members of the CBF organization.
††One of 11 projects in which scientists were hired to design, conduct, and analyze a monitoring project.
‡‡One of eight projects in which scientists participated in multiparty monitoring teams or monitoring subcommittees.
§§One of six projects that involved conventional science primarily in the form of oversight by a government agency that determined the treatment or monitoring methods used.