Paper presented at the 1997 meeting of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
 

Sarah Michaels, Department of Urban and Environmental Policy, Tufts University, 97 Talbot Avenue, Medford, MA 02155, tel: 617-627-3394, fax: 617-627-3377, e-mail: smichael@emerald.tufts.edu

Robert J. Mason, Department of Geography, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, tel: 215-204-4483, fax: 215-204-7833, e-mail: rmason@nimbus.temple.edu

William D. Solecki, Department of Earth and Environmental Studies, Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043, tel: 973-655-5129, fax: 973-655-4390, e-mail: soleckiw@saturn.montclair.edu
 
 

This paper focuses on understanding the use of partnerships as a means to achieve regional ecosystem management. By partnerships we mean collaborative efforts--involving such organizations as nonprofit groups, government agencies, and landowning parties--which are aimed at achieving shared management objectives. Our particular focus is on partnerships that have been voluntarily initiated and negotiated and that address one or more facets of ecosystem management. Ecosystem management is defined as a holistic approach designed to protect the integrity of native ecosystems over the long term (see Yaffee 1996 and Gunderson, et al. 1995 for recent discussion). This definition, however, is not meant to discount the importance of viable local economies and sustainable communities.

The significance of this paper is that it begins to develop a place-based conceptualization of partnerships. Specifically, it identifies collaborative efforts in New York State's Adirondack Park. Our place-based perspective views concern about a specific place as an essential theme that may play out in a range of partnerships. This examination of multiple partnerships within one area contrasts with other efforts to date which have (1) looked at how one organization participates in collaboration with different partners (Darrows et al 1993, Selin and Chavez 1993), (2) focused on public-private land management partnerships across states (Williams and Ellefson 1996), or (3) profiled a single partnership (KenCairn 1995).

By looking at the total set of partnerships within the context of the Adirondack Park, we will be able to better understand how organizations co-exist, conflict, and cooperate with one another. We argue that such an integrative, place-based approach is necessary for the conceptualization and management of regional ecosystems. This perspective reflects the types of information and organization study demanded by contemporary ecosystem management theorists. Explicitly stated in the current ecosystem management literature is that successful and meaningful management efforts must be place-based, community-driven, and adaptive. While partnerships reflect the types of organization structures that can be effective under these conditions, in order to understand how and why partnerships work one has to study those operating in a region as a set. In other words, partnerships can not be studied in isolation. The development, structure, and effectiveness of any partnership is as much a product of the local physical and societal conditions in which the partnership takes place, as the parent organizations that originated the agreement. This holistic view of partnership study and assessment is the position we take in this paper.

A considerable strength of this approach is that it does not exclusively focus on partnerships that its participants regard as successful. As Darrow, et al (1993) note, theoretical advances will require learning from unsuccessful partnerships as well as successful ones.

 To develop the context for reporting the findings of our survey of Adirondack partnerships, three essential areas are discussed. The first is the current state of ecosystem management. Indeed, it is the recognition of the ecological importance of managing landscapes at a scale larger than individual properties that has fueled proactive partnerships to implement a strategy of ecosystem-based natural resource management (Bullock and Wall 1995). Second, the current state of regional-scale environmental administration is highly conducive to public-private collaboration. Third, since place defines partnership activities and scope it is important to have some sense of the geography and history of the Adirondack Park. After that it is possible to discuss the survey findings and how they inform our understanding of the role of partnerships in achieving regional ecosystem management.
 

Ecosystem management plans have been put into practice at increasing numbers of sites throughout the United States. This new approach can be seen as a practical application of a current ecology theory framework which emphasizes an integrative and holistic view of ecosystem function, coupled with an increased appreciation of the limits of our understanding of how complex systems function and change (see Hollings, et al. 1995 and Costanza, et al. 1992 for more discussion). This ecological framework and associated ecosystem management approaches require researchers and managers to analyze simultaneously all the component parts of an ecosystem, and to recognize the relative importance of long-term ecological trends and of non-local inputs into the system. This perspective also requires that the roles of individuals and society--as agents of ecosystem function and change--be recognized and incorporated into any management efforts.

 Given the broad and integrative quality of the ecosystem management approach, a powerful argument emerges for collaborative efforts among the many agencies and organizations that operate in a particular area. Ecosystem management requires that groups, possibly with widely differing agendas, come together and address ecologically-based issues of common concern. Ecosystem management-oriented partnerships are a key mechanism through which these organizations can define this common ground and jointly manage ecosystems. The utility of ecosystem management approaches has been furthered in the current political context of government downsizing and decentralization.

Government organizations and agencies have been forced to be more efficient and more coordinated with respect to their activities and operations. Environmental agencies, such as New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation, have not been immune from this trend. Environmental agencies, forced to do more with less, have turned not always willingly to the private sector for assistance in carrying out their mandates. At the same time, and more than coincidentally, nonprofit environmental groups have become more entrepreneurial in identifying opportunities where they can best employ advantages of their sector, such as responsiveness to local concerns and the ability to work outside the public limelight. One consequence of these redefinitions of the roles of government and nonprofit enterprises has been greatly increased potential for partnerships.

 Most striking within the environmental sphere has been the search for alternatives to the traditional top-down regulatory approaches that were associated with much of the early success of the federal environmental legislation of the 1970s. One example of the development of a collaborative approach to conservation as an option within a regulatory structure is the development of habitat conservation plans pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. Successfully completing a habitat conservation plan (HCP) is one means for developers to undertake a project where species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) might be located without triggering the criminal and civil penalties associated with taking an endangered species. Section 3 (19) of the ESA defines "take" as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Regional HCPs cover a fairly large geographical area and extend across properties and government jurisdictions. While few have been completed to date, a number are underway. HCPs offer the advantage of a more holistic approach than is possible on a parcel by parcel basis. Specifically, they allow for more comprehensive species and habitat-related analyses of conservation needs, and make it possible to set aside larger areas needed to sustain ecologically viable habitat (Beatley 1995, 37).
 

Partnerships are becoming recognized internationally for their potential to contribute to sustainable resource use and maintenance of biodiversity (Holdgate, 1996; McNeely, 1995). In the United States, land-use reform advocates have identified partnerships as one means to enable communities to accommodate growth in a manner that is both environmentally and fiscally appropriate (Diamond and Noonan, 1996). Collaborative land conservation projects and the rationale for participating in them have been documented by participants (Endicott, 1993; Wilson et al., 1995; Bartlett, 1995; Sawhill, 1996). Attributes for successful partnerships have been identified (Long and Arnold, 1995; Holdgate, 1996; Breckenridge, 1995; Sawhill, 1996). Long and Arnold (1995) have taken the next step of developing a typology of partnerships, using as parameters pre-partnership conflict among participants and relevance of individual participants' goals to the partnerships goals.

 We are moving towards an understanding of what motivates organizations to participate in partnerships. Partnership participation can be viewed as a function of particular combinations of jurisdiction and resources. Jurisdiction refers to having the necessary authority to dictate management practices in a particular setting. Resources refers to having access to the means to undertake actions necessary to achieve goals and objectives. Examples of resources include funding and expertise. Where an organization has both jurisdiction and resources, there is no incentive for partnership. Where an organization has neither jurisdiction nor resources other parties do not have an incentive to partner with that organization. More interesting for our purposes are the following two combinations: First, situations where an organization has jurisdiction but lacks resources, it is motivated to participate in a partnership because of its internal need to access resources that it cannot generate on its own. We refer to this as capacity-driven partnering. Second, where an organization lacks jurisdiction but has resources, its partnership participation is motivated by a willingness to respond to a concern external to its organization but within its domain of policy interest. This is referred to as commitment-driven partnering.

 The examples of capacity and commitment-driven partnerships given above suggest important differences in what the two types of partnerships accomplish and how they do so in terms of conservation initiatives. Capacity-driven partnerships enable agencies to fulfill their mandated responsibilities. In contrast, commitment-driven partnering is about developing new opportunities.

 Some agencies that previously executed their mandate on their own have become reluctant capacity-driven partners. If they still had the resources, they would not participate in the partnership. In contrast, initiators of commitment-driven partnerships are more enthusiastic collaborators. They identify the circumstances under which partnering is the preferred means to achieve their agency's mission. We use the results of the survey to test this model of motivation for partnership participation against the factors respondents identify as motivating their participation.
 

 The Adirondack Park, with its checkerboard of publicly and privately-owned property, is an important model in light of the increasing difficulty of acquiring significant natural areas through public purchase (Liroff and Davis, 1981); indeed, fee-simple purchase is no longer considered the necessarily to be the optimum solution. Since the Park is roughly 40% publicly owned and 60% privately-owned property (Booth, 1987) there is plenty of scope for 1) public/public partnerships, such as land-use regulation undertaken by the Adirondack Park Agency and local governments, 2) public/private partnerships, such as between the Department of Environmental Conservation Region V and the Adirondack Mountain Club for trail maintenance, and 3) private/private partnerships, such as the Northwest Flow Project which involves The Nature Conservancy and other landowners in the northwest sector of the Park.

 Moreover, there is considerable local antipathy toward state regulation and oversight of local affairs. Public/private partnerships have the potential to defuse, or at least diminish, some of this antagonism. In some cases, NGOs can succeed with land purchases, habitat restoration, and other activities where state agencies are likely--at least at the outset--to encounter resistance.
 

Geographical Description of the Adirondack Park

 The Adirondack Park is a patchwork of wilderness and heavily disturbed areas dotted with settlements in upstate New York. It covers nearly 2.4 million ha within a days drive for 25% of the population of the United States (DiNunzio, 1992). Outside of Alaska, it is the largest natural area in the country (DiNunzio, 1992). It is larger by a million acres than the combined area of Yellowstone, Yosemite, Olympic, Glacier and Grand Canyon National Parks (Liroff and Davis, 1981). It is approximately the same size as the State of Vermont and makes up nearly twenty percent of the land mass of New York State. The headwaters of five major water basins --the Lake George-Lake Champlain Basin, the St. Lawrence River, the Black River, the Mohawk River, and the Hudson River--are contained in part or entirely in the park (Booth, 1987). Unique to North America is the extent of riparian habitat close to mountainous terrain in the Adirondack
Park (Heiman, 1988).
 
 
 
 

Brief history of Adirondack Park Management

 New York State appropriated much of what was to become the Adirondack Park in 1779. The state legislature passed a bill declaring that lands belonging to the Crown prior to the War of Independence were to be vested forever in the people of the state. But, five years later, a legislature desperate for funds began selling land throughout the state (Graham, 1978).

 In 1883 the legislature stopped selling land in six Adirondack counties (Donaldson, 1921). This decision was an outcome of the concern of business people, informed by scientists, that destroying the Adirondack forest would adversely affect rainfall and streamflow. It was believed that these hydrologic changes would eventually harm water transport on the Hudson River and the Erie Canal, essential arteries of state commerce (Heiman, 1988; Halper, 1992).

 The Forest Preserve, created in 1885, is forest land owned by New York State within what would become the Adirondack Park. The preserve was created in an effort to restrict further transfer of public lands to private ownership. Still, the Forest Preserve designation did not completely halt the transfer of public land or harvesting timber from the preserve. As a result of title disputes, an additional 100,000 acres (40,500 ha) of public lands was transferred to private interests (Vogt et al., 1996) The designation does, however, mark the first time sweeping wilderness preservation was undertaken for utilitarian resource conservation (Heiman, 1988)-- namely to protect the flow of significant New York waterways.

 On January 1, 1895, when Article 7, Section 7 of the state constitution (now Article 14, Section 1) went into effect, New York became the first state in the country to provide a natural resource area with the protection of its state constitution (Heiman, 1988). The forest preserve is protected by an 1894 constitutional mandate to keep it forever wild. This exceptional step was taken because of the widespread perception that the protection provided by the forest preserve designation was being eroded.

 Neither the 1892 creation of the park nor the 1894 constitutional amendment resulted in any change of ownership within the park boundaries (Halper, 1995). And it was not until 1912, twenty years after the park was created, that the private lands interspersed among the public lands within the park boundaries were legally included in the park (Collins, 1994).

 It was the growing popularity of the Park among the less well to do that triggered increased governmental regulation of land. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, recreational use of the Adirondacks increased dramatically with development of the New York State's limited access interstate highway system, especially the Adirondack Northway (Interstate 87). When completed in 1968, the Northway linked Albany, New York with the Canadian border near Montreal.

 By 1968, the threat of development led Laurence Rockefeller, the chair of the State Council of Parks and the brother of New York State Governor Nelson Rockefeller, to release a report recommending that the core of the Adirondacks be incorporated into a new national park (Booth, 1987; Halper, 1995).

 The vehement opposition by private, local and state interests to the national park scheme resulted in the governor appointing in 1968 a blue ribbon Temporary Study Commission on the Future of the Adirondacks (Graham, 1978; Liroff and Davis, 1981). The 1970 final report weighted preservation, aesthetics and ecological integrity more heavily than local
economic concerns (Heiman, 1988).

 The Temporary Study Commission (1970) concluded that the future social and ecological integrity of the park was threatened by second home subdivisions. By then, New York State was the national leader in the percentage (10.1) of households and number of households owning second homes. The Adirondacks were a natural attraction for land speculation since local land use regulation in any form only applied to 10 percent of private land (Heiman, 1988).

 In response to the Temporary Study Commission report, the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) was created in 1971 as a state agency with broad authority to control private land development within the park. A draft land use plan was published in December 1972. As required by statute, public hearings on the plan were held in all twelve counties of the park and in three out of-park locations. The preliminary plan was vocally opposed at the in-park hearings and strongly supported at the out-of-park hearings (Liroff and Davis, 1981).

 Two proposals for large subdivisions spurred the 1973 legislative approval of the Adirondack Park Private Land Use and Development Plan. In the unzoned town of Colton, the Horizon Corporation of Tucson, Arizona intended to subdivide a 24,300 acre parcel into 7,000 lots (Heiman, 1988; Graham, 1978; Liroff and Davis, 1981). The proposal by Connecticut
developer Louis Paparazzo was to build the 4,000-unit Ton-Da-Lay project on 18,500 acres of forested land project in the town of Altamont (Heiman, 1988; Graham, 1978).

 The threat of massive real estate development was sufficient to spur an alliance of preservationists, conservationists, vacationers, and wood product companies to support large-scale control of private land use (Halper, 1995). Until the 1970s, private land owners were subject only
to minimal or non-existent local zoning ordinances and were thus free to take virtually whatever actions they wanted on their own land (Halper, 1995). Since then, the development of private lands has been subject to state land use controls which are the most stringent in the country (Heiman, 1988).

 The 1973 approval of the final version of the Adirondack Park Land Use and Development Plan extended state oversight to the entire park. The 1973 legislation made the Adirondack Park the largest area in the country subject to a program of comprehensive land-use planning and regulation (Collins, 1994). The adoption of the Adirondack Park Land Use and Development Plan (1973) centralized legal authority as the dominant means to conserve park resources. State regulators came to control rights formerly held by private landowners and only loosely regulated by local governments. The plan seeks to reconcile the demand for development with
the need to maintain the park's open space character. It does so by specifying allowable land and resource-use activities on private park lands through the creation of zones, which permit varying intensities of land use or protection. All development and resource extraction projects exceeding specified minimum thresholds are reviewed by the Adirondack Park Agency (Vogt et al., 1996). Localities are encouraged by the APA to modify their plans so that they can then resume local review of certain types of development proposals.

 The Commission on the Adirondacks in the Twenty First Century (1990) acknowledged that APA's efforts to manage the park have been fragmented and called for mechanisms that would force agencies to deal with the park as a single entity. Booth (1987) suggests that the framework for managing park lands did not adequately address the cumulative impact of development in the park. Vogt et al. (1996) note that the Park's comprehensive land-use plan and state review of development and resource extraction both have site-specific scale orientations and are not ecosystem-based.
 

Of particular interest in this history is how non-governmental organizations (NGOs), either acting in concert with each other, or raising a multitude of voices, have engaged with and been engaged with the state. This engagement has reflected the accepted practices of political participation at different times. Early preservationist efforts focused on lobbying the legislature to introduce regulation. A public outcry in the late 1960s generated a governor-engineered commission. A loose coalition of those opposed to extensive second-home development spurred and supported a plan for imposing restrictions on development on private property. The agency charged with executing such a plan, the APA, was required to engage the public in the review of its plan. When the report of the Commission on the Adirondacks in the Twenty First Century was released in 1990, a loosely-organized, but vocal and effective, coalition of landowning and development interests quickly formed. It ensured that the report's main recommendations, which called for expansion of park boundaries, land acquisition, and more stringent regulation of land use, would not be implemented. What all these interactions have in common is a limited scope of engagement where non-government entities provide input but do not share in the management of natural resources.

 We are now in a different era of park management. This is evidenced by how the APA currently grapples with three priorities: protecting the integrity of the working forest, protecting the ecological integrity of the park's waters and wild lands, and protecting the park's communities. These priorities are not ones the APA can meet on its own. They require novel configurations of agencies, jurisdictions, and financial resources to protect specific at-risk resources (Collins 1994).
 

Since no comprehensive listing of partnership participants and their accomplishments existed, a basic objective of this survey was to fill this void. A second objective was to test our model of motivation for partnership participation.

 The design and administration of the questionnaire required identification of prospective participants, developing and refining the survey instrument, and administering the questionnaire. In this initial survey, representatives of nonprofit environmental organizations were targeted. Prospective participants were identified from interviews in four pivotal Adirondack organizations in March and from documentation obtained at these interviews or subsequent to them. The substance of the questionnaire was derived from the objectives. Important refinements to the instrument were made through pretesting the questionnaire with two individuals who work in nonprofit organizations actively engaged in conservation-related collaboration. On September 24, 1997 surveys were mailed out. By mid-October, fifteen surveys had been returned; 9 of them with complete, usable responses.
 

Survey Findings

 The survey respondents represent well-known environmental NGOs that participate in partnerships. These results represent only the first part of a wider survey, which will include governmental and for-profit participants in partnerships.
 
 
 
 

One of the issues that emerged is the difficulty of defining partnerships. The term is often deployed, but there is not clear agreement on its definition. As indicated earlier in the paper, we employed the following:

             Partnerships are defined here as collaborative efforts--involving such organizations as
             nonprofit groups, government agencies, and landowning parties--aimed at achieving shared
             management objectives.

Potentially, this invites a wide range of responses. In the first instance, at least, we are opting for broad definitional inclusiveness in interpreting the responses.

The concept of "partnerships" can be a charged one, positively as well as negatively. One organization--Northern Wings--replied quite simply that they do not "partner." In fact, it might be argued that they do, since they provide flights, at modest cost, for environmental NGOs. By contrast, the Adirondack Mountain Club is a getting all the mileage it can from promoting the fact that they are active partnership participants.

Public-private partnerships are well-established in the Adirondacks; as already noted, Adirondack public-private collaboration has a history of more than a century. Yet even when we consider the "current era" of Adirondack Management (the past 25 years), public-private partnerships are relatively well-established. Our results reveal that three out of nine have been in existence for more than a decade.

 Partnership activities range from basic resource management activities, such as trail maintenance and fisheries, to more exotic concerns, including the issue of wolf reintroduction. Co participants, i.e., organizations that work in partnership with the survey respondents, tend to be NPOs (Nonprofit organizations), and to a lesser extent state and other government agencies. NPOs were named six times, while state agencies were named four times; a fifth if observer status is included. In only two cases each were commercial/corporate landowners and private, non commercial, non-corporate landowners named as co-participants.

 Interestingly, survey respondents are not exclusively interested in ecosystem preservation or restoration. Although this is a principal concern (noted by five of nine respondents); so, too, are managed use of the natural environment (classic "conservation" activities), open space protection, basic resource maintenance (trails and fish stocks), and environmental education.

When asked if there was a specific catalyst for the formation of the partnership, most organizations responded affirmatively. But in actuality, this does not necessarily mean that there was a discrete event that led to formation of the partnership. It does tell us that partnerships seem to be built around clearly defined issues or needs, among them:
 
 

• to conserve, protect, and restore trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds
• to respond to strong opposition to possible wolf recovery in the Adirondacks
• to anticipate and increase tourism visitation
• to maintain deteriorating trails that the New York State Department of Environmental

 And in at least one case, the efforts of an individual were cited. In this case, a crusader for protection of summit vegetation--a retired botany professor--was identified as the catalyst that brought the partnership into being.
What additional factors motivate and sustain partnerships? Virtually all survey respondents believe that partnerships address problems that benefit from cooperative solutions. Still, we learned that shared objectives need not be a signature element of partnerships: this was especially evident in the case of the wolf reintroduction "partnership," where participants have widely diverging perspectives on the issue. Nearly all respondents agreed that partnerships provide additional resources to address problems (only one of nine rated this as "neither important nor unimportant," while the rest rated it as a highly important motivating factor). As to whether or not partnerships expand administrative capacity to address problems, there is not such clear agreement. Several respondents feel that this is not particularly important as a motivating factor. It will be interesting to gauge these responses, which come only from environmental NGOs, against those of their governmental partners. Those results will be available following the next phase of the survey.
 

Future Work

 Our findings to date raise many questions. Among them are the following:
 

•  How do partnerships come into being?

• To what extent do ecosystem management concepts guide partnership activities?

Like the partnership concept itself, "ecosystem management" may be a politically-loaded concept. Some environmental NGOs may want to play down this aspect of their activities; some "wise-use" groups (which we have not yet formally approached) may have their own take on ecosystem management. Part of our future work will look at the varying conceptions of ecosystem management.
 
 

• What constitutes success?

1. ecological protection,
2. satisfaction of partnership participants,
3. capacity-building of organizations,
4. economic efficiency in achieving specific outcomes,
5. building of trust among partnership participants and fostering of trust on the part of non-
participants, and
6. equity in decision making and outcomes.

 Employing these criteria serve to highlight the challenges and opportunities posed by the placed-based and institutional considerations described earlier in the paper. As our research progresses, more information will be gathered from government and private-sector partnership participants. We will also conduct more in-depth interviews with key actors representing all sectors. Moreover, we will seek to learn more about "anti-environmental" partnerships in the Adirondacks, as well as the partnerships that simply fail, for whatever reasons, to materialize.
 
 

Adirondack Park Agency (1995) Annual Report. The Adirondack Park Agency, Ray Brook, New York.

 Adirondack Park Agency (1996) Proposal to Revise Adirondack Park Agency Rules and Regulations. The Adirondack Park Agency, Ray Brook, New York.

 Adirondack Council (1995) The Adirondack Council 1975-1995. The Adirondack Council, Elizabethtown, New York.

 Adirondack Council (1997) Newsletter/Winter 1997. The Adirondack Council, Elizabethtown, New York.

 Bartlett, D. (1995) Saving the Best of Texas. University of Texas Press, Austin.

 Beatley, Timothy. (1995) Preserving Biodiversity through the Use of Habitat Conservation Plans in Porter, Douglas R. and Salveson, David A. (eds) Collaborative Planning for Wetlands and Wildlife. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

 Bliss, Patty; Brown, Cynthia; Busse, Phil; Canfield, Miles; et. al. (1992) Working toward sustainable economic development and resource conservation in the Adirondack Park. Unpublished paper prepared by the Program in Environmental Studies, Middlebury College, Middlebury Vermont.

 Booth, R. (1987) New York's Adirondack Park Agency. In Managing Land-Use Conflicts, (eds) D. J. Brower, and D. S. Carol, pp. 140-184. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.

Breckenridge, L. P. (1995) Reweaving the landscape: The institutional challenges of ecosystem management for land in private ownership Vermont Law Review 19 (2), 363-422.

 Bullock, Jr., James F. and Wall, William A. (1995) Proactive Endangered Species Management: A Partnership Paradigm. Transactions of the 60th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, pages 439-446.

 Collins, J. (1994) The Adirondack Park: How a green line approach works. In The Future of the Northern Forest, (eds) C. McGrory Klyza and S. C. Trombulak, pp. 112-121. Middlebury College Press, Hanover, NH.

 Commission on the Adirondacks in the Twenty-First Century (1990) The Adirondack Park in the Twenty-First Century. State of New York, Albany, NY.

 Darrow, Catherine V.; Vaske, Jerry J.; Donnelly, Maureen P.; and Digman, Sandra. 1993. Public/Private Partnerships in Natural Resources. General Technical Report NE 185:103-108.

 Diamond, H. L. and Noonan, P. F. (1996) Land Use in America. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

 Diffenderfer, M. and Birch, D. (1997) Bioregionalism: A comparative study of the Adirondacks and the Sierra Nevada. Society & Natural Resources 10 (1), 3-16.

 DiNunzio, M. G. (1992) A Gift of Wildness. The Adirondack Council, Elizabethtown, New York.

 Donaldson, A. L. (1921) A History of the Adirondacks. The Century Co., New York.

 Endicott, E. (ed) (1993) Land Conservation Through Public/Private Partnerships. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

 Graham, Jr., F. (1978) The Adirondack Park. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

 Halper, L. A. (1992) A rich mans paradise: Constitutional preservation of New York States Adirondack Forest, a centenary consideration Ecology Law Quarterly 19 (2), 193-267.

 Halper, L. A. (1995) The Adirondack Park and the Northern Forest: An essay on preservation and conservation. Vermont Law Review 19 (2), 335-362.

 Heiman, M. K. (1988) The Quiet Evolution. Praeger, New York.

 Holdgate, M. (1996) From Care to Action. Taylor & Francis, Washington, D.C.

 KenCairn, Brett. (1995) A Community-based Approach to Forest Management in the Pacific Northwest. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues 5, 43-52.

 Liroff, R. A. and Davis, G. G. (1981) Protecting Open Space. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.

 Long, F. J. and Arnold, M. B. (1995) The Power of Environmental Partnerships. Dryden Press, Fort Worth.

 McNeely, J. A. (ed) (1995) Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

 Sawhill, J. C. (1996) Creating biodiversity partnerships: The Nature Conservancy's perspective Environmental Management (20) (6), 789-792.

 Selin, Steven and Chavez, Debbie. 1993. Recreation Partnerships and the USDA Forest Service: Managers Perceptions of the Impact of the National Recreation Strategy. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 11 (1), 1-8.

 Temporary Study Commission on the Future of the Adirondacks (1970) The Future of the Adirondack Park. Temporary Study Commission on the Future of the Adirondacks, Albany.

 Vogt, K. A., Gordon, J. C., Wargo, J. P., Vogt, D. J. and collaborators. (1996) Ecosystems. Springer, New York.

 Williams, Ellen M. and Ellefson, Paul V. 1996. Natural resource partnerships: Factors leading to cooperative success in the management of landscape level ecosystems involving mixed ownership. University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN.

 Wilson, M. V., Alverson, E. R., Clark, D. L., Hayes, R. H., Ingersoll, C. A. and Naughton, M. B. (1995) Restoration & Management Notes 13 (1), 26-28.