Estimating US federal wildland fire managers’ preferences toward competing strategic suppression objectives
David E. Calkin A D , Tyron Venn B , Matthew Wibbenmeyer C and Matthew P. Thompson A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, PO Box 7669, Missoula, MT 59807, USA.
B University of Montana, College of Forestry and Conservation, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 59812, USA.
C Collins Consulting, PO Box 7669, Missoula, MT 59807, USA.
D Corresponding author. Email: decalkin@fs.fed.us
International Journal of Wildland Fire 22(2) 212-222 https://doi.org/10.1071/WF11075
Submitted: 1 June 2011 Accepted: 9 May 2012 Published: 3 October 2012
Abstract
Wildfire management involves significant complexity and uncertainty, requiring simultaneous consideration of multiple, non-commensurate objectives. This paper investigates the tradeoffs fire managers are willing to make among these objectives using a choice experiment methodology that provides three key advancements relative to previous stated-preference studies directed at understanding fire manager preferences: (1) a more immediate relationship between the instrument employed in measuring preferences and current management practices and operational decision-support systems; (2) an explicit exploration of how sociopolitical expectations may influence decision-making and (3) consideration of fire managers’ relative prioritisation of cost-containment objectives. Results indicate that in the current management environment, choices among potential suppression strategies are driven largely by consideration of risk to homes and high-value watersheds and potential fire duration, and are relatively insensitive to increases in cost and personnel exposure. Indeed, when asked to choose the strategy they would expect to choose under current social and political constraints, managers favoured higher-cost suppression strategies, ceteris paribus. However, managers indicated they would personally prefer to pursue strategies that were more cost-conscious and proportionate with values at risk. These results confirm earlier studies that highlight the challenges managerial incentives and sociopolitical pressures create in achieving cost-containment objectives.
Additional keywords: choice experiment, fire management, incentives, suppression cost.
References
Abt KL, Prestemon JP, Gebert KM (2009) Wildfire suppression cost forecasts for the US Forest Service. Journal of Forestry 107, 173–178.Adamowicz W, Louviere JJ, Williams M (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26, 271–292.
| Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere JJ (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80, 64–75.
| Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ananda J, Herath G (2009) A critical review of multi-criteria decision-making methods with special reference to forest management and planning. Ecological Economics 68, 2535–2548.
| A critical review of multi-criteria decision-making methods with special reference to forest management and planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Awh RY, Primeaux RY (1985) Managerial discretion and expense preference behavior. The Review of Economics and Statistics 67, 224–231.
| Managerial discretion and expense preference behavior.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brey R, Riera P, Mogas J (2007) Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: an application to Spanish forests. Ecological Economics 64, 305–312.
| Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: an application to Spanish forests.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bruins RJ, Munns WR, Botti SJ, Brink S, Cleland D, Kapustka L, Lee D, Luzadis V, McCarthy LF, Rana N, Rideout DB, Rollins M, Woodbury P, Zupko M (2010) A new process for organizing assessments of social, economic, and environmental outcomes: case study of wildland fire management in the USA. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 6, 469–483.
Calkin DE, Gebert KM, Jones G, Nielson RP (2005) Forest Service large fire area burned and suppression expenditure trends, 1970–2002. Journal of Forestry 103, 179–183.
Calkin DE, Thompson MP, Finney MA, Hyde KD (2011) A real-time risk-assessment tool supporting wildland fire decision-making. Journal of Forestry 109, 274–280.
Canton-Thompson J, Gebert KM, Thompson B, Jones G, Calkin DE, Donovan GH (2008) External human factors in incident management team decision-making and their effect on large-fire suppression expenditures. Journal of Forestry 106, 416–424.
Cook C, Heath F, Thompson RL (2000) A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement 60, 821–836.
| A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Czajkowski M, Buszko-Briggs M, Hanley N (2009) Valuing changes in forest biodiversity. Ecological Economics 68, 2910–2917.
| Valuing changes in forest biodiversity.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Donovan GH, Brown TC (2005) An alternative incentive structure for wildfire management on national forest land. Forest Science 51, 387–395.
Donovan GH, Brown TC, Dale L (2008) Incentives and wildfire management in the United States. In ‘The Economics of Forest Disturbance’. (Eds TP Holmes, JP Prestemon, KL Abt) pp. 323–340. (Springer: Dordrecht, the Netherlands)
Donovan GH, Prestemon P, Gebert K (2011) The effect of newspaper coverage and political pressure on wildfire suppression costs. Society & Natural Resources 24, 785–798.
| The effect of newspaper coverage and political pressure on wildfire suppression costs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Etzioni A (1986) The case for a multiple-utility conception. Economics and Philosophy 2, 159–183.
| The case for a multiple-utility conception.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Finney MA, Grenfell IC, McHugh CW, Seli RC, Tretheway D, Stratton RD, Brittain S (2011) A method for ensemble wildland fire simulation. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 16, 153–167.
| A method for ensemble wildland fire simulation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hausman DM, McPherson MS (1996) ‘Economic Analysis and Moral Philosophy.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK)
Interagency Working Group (2001) ‘Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy.’ (National Interagency Fire Center: Boise, ID)
Kennedy JJ, Haynes RW, Zhou X (2005) Line officers’ views on stated USDA Forest Service values and the agency reward system. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-632. (Portland, OR)
Kuhfeld WF (2010) Marketing research methods in SAS: experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. (SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC)
Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait J (Eds) (2000) ‘Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK)
Lutz MA (1993) The utility of multiple utility: a comment on Brennan. Economics and Philosophy 9, 145–154.
| The utility of multiple utility: a comment on Brennan.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Maguire LA, Albright EA (2005) Can behavioral decision theory explain risk-averse fire management decisions? Forest Ecology and Management 211, 47–58.
| Can behavioral decision theory explain risk-averse fire management decisions?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Margolis H (1982) ‘Selfishness, Altruism, and Rationality.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK)
McFadden D (1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In ‘Frontiers in Econometrics’. (Ed. P Zarembka) pp. 105–142. (Academic Press: New York)
Migué JL, Bélanger G (1974) Towards a general theory of managerial discretion. Public Choice 17, 27–47.
| Towards a general theory of managerial discretion.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
National Interagency Fire Center (2007) Wildland fire accidents. Available at http://www.nifc.gov/safety/safety_documents/Type_Accident.pdf [Verified 20 May 2011]
Navarro P (1988) Why do corporations give to charity? The Journal of Business 61, 65–93.
| Why do corporations give to charity?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Niskanen WA (1968) The peculiar economics of bureaucracy. The American Economic Review 58, 293–305.
Noonan-Wright EK, Opperman TS, Finney MA, Zimmerman GT, Seli RC, Elenz LM, Calkin DE, Fiedler JR (2011) Developing the US wildland fire decision support system (WFDSS). Journal of Combustion 2011, 168473
| Developing the US wildland fire decision support system (WFDSS).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nyborg K (2000) Homo economicus and Homo politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 42, 305–322.
| Homo economicus and Homo politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rideout DB, Ziesler PS, Kling R, Loomis JB, Botti SJ (2008) Estimating rates of substitution for protecting values at risk for initial-attack planning and budgeting. Forest Policy and Economics 10, 205–219.
| Estimating rates of substitution for protecting values at risk for initial-attack planning and budgeting.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sen AK (1977) Rational fools: a critique of the behavioural foundations of economic theory. Philosophy & Public Affairs 6, 317–344.
Severtson DJ, Burt JE (2012) The influence of mapped hazards on risk beliefs: a proximity-based modeling approach. Risk Analysis 32, 259–280.
| The influence of mapped hazards on risk beliefs: a proximity-based modeling approach.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Smyth RL, Watzin MC, Manning RE (2009) Investigating public preferences for managing Lake Champlain using a choice experiment. Journal of Environmental Management 90, 615–623.
| Investigating public preferences for managing Lake Champlain using a choice experiment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXhtVKitL4%3D&md5=b04377085158bfb8c88b3a81357aa82cCAS |
Thompson MP, Calkin DE, Finney MA, Gebert KM, Hand MS (2012) A risk-based approach to wildland fire budgetary planning. Forest Science
| A risk-based approach to wildland fire budgetary planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | [Published online early 16 February 2012]
Tirole J (1994) The internal organization of government. Oxford Economic Papers 46, 1–29.
Tutsch M, Haider W, Beardmore B, Lertzman K, Cooper AB, Walker RC (2010) Estimating the consequences of wildfire for wildfire risk assessment, a case study in the southern Gulf Islands, British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40, 2104–2114.
| Estimating the consequences of wildfire for wildfire risk assessment, a case study in the southern Gulf Islands, British Columbia, Canada.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
USDA Forest Service (2009) Fire and aviation management fiscal year 2008 accountability report. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/management/reports/fam_fy2008_accountability_report.pdf [Verified 15 April 2011]
Weber EU, Blais AR, Betz NE (2002) A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15, 263–290.
| A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Williamson OE (1963) Managerial discretion and business behavior. The American Economic Review 53, 1032–1057.
Wilson RS, Winter PL, Maguire LA, Ascher T (2010) Managing wildfire events: risk-based decision-making among a group of federal fire managers. Risk Analysis 31, 1–13.
