| A major challenge to state forestry agencies in coming years will be responding to growing public concern about relationships between biological diversity and forest use and management. State government agencies have taken diverse approaches toward organizing programs to conserve the biodiversity of forest land. Efforts in most states have focused on creating three types of programs: natural area, nongame wildlife, and natural heritage programs. More traditional forestry, fish and wildlife, and planning programs also have increased their focus on biodiversity concerns in many states.;No formal investigation has been conducted on the levels and types of coordination between state agencies responsible for administering forestry and biodiversity programs, and very little research has focused on administrative aspects of state biodiversity programs.;This study was undertaken in response to this lack of information. The study is based on a nationwide survey of 156 state biodiversity and forestry administrators. The overall response rate was 80.1 percent, including 74.5 percent of biodiversity program managers and 92.0 percent of state foresters. Survey results provide the basis for recommendations to improve state agency organizational structures for conserving biodiversity of forests, increase biodiversity program effectiveness, and enhance coordination between state forestry and biodiversity programs. Program effectiveness was directly related to organizational structure, program managers' attitudes about significance of biodiversity issues to their state, completion of long-range plans, advice and assistance given to state and private forest landowners, and land management by the biodiversity program.;The study also evaluates how well critical components of a theoretical organizational design model (Galbraith 1973) apply to state government agencies responsible for biodiversity and forestry programs. The study posits that if controversies about how to deal with biodiversity issues increase task uncertainty for state natural resources agencies, then agencies that have experienced a high degree of controversy over a long period of time will have developed more forms of lateral relations than agencies that have experienced little controversy or have experienced controversy only recently. Results suggest general support for this assertion with regard to forestry agencies, but less support with respect to biodiversity programs. |
