  Privacy
| Legal |
Table of Contents Back | Next | Home | Cover Page |
 Technology & Development Center |
Wildfire
Equipment Development Priority Needs:
A Comparison 1984 to 1998
An agency has two basic questions to ask about fire equipment needs:
The vast majority of surveys are cross-sectional in design. The results from such surveys are the opinion of a population at only a single time period; they are a snapshot. Longitudinal studies, those designed to compare the changing views of people over time, are rarely done. They are very expensive because of the complex methods used to track down the same respondents over a long period. People die, move, or just disappear.
Like the 1984 study, the current survey involved many logistical complexities. This was especially the case when more than 2,000 questionnaires were bundled and mailed to all member agencies of NWCG. The agencies distributed the questionnaires to those who worked in fire-related roles. Because of this method of distribution, we had no way to know who filled out and returned questionnaires. It is reasonable to assume, however, that in the 13 years since the first survey, it would be highly unlikely that few people who filled out the 1984 questionnaires had responded in 1998. In spite of this, we feel we can still compare the first survey to the 1998 survey.
Comparison of both findings can be done if a distinction is made between two kinds of respondents. They can respond as private individuals, or they can answer questionnaires reflecting the views of their agency in their fire-related work roles. By viewing the respondents in the two surveys as employees of fire organizations, we can compare the findings. Those responding in the current survey reflect equipment development priority needs in their firefighting work roles in their agency in both the 1984 and 1998 surveys.
In 1984, a total of 1,026 questionnaires were returned. Responses were from those who worked in fire-related roles in the member agencies of FEWT: Interior agencies (Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service); the USDA Forest Service; and State agencies. Their views on equipment-development priority needs were based on their work roles. Specifically, we received responses from field-level crew foremen, program managers, line officers, coordinators of fire support units such as cache managers, members of interagency Class I fire teams, and many others.
The 1984 questionnaire contained 216 items. This number was reduced to 166 in 1998, because technology development had solved some problems. For example, lightweight radios and aerial-ignition systems are now being used. However, most of the top-20 items identified in the 1984 survey were included in the 1998 questionnaire.
In 1998 more than 2,000 survey questionnaires, with the addition of new equipment and technology items, were mailed to the same FEWT member agencies that received the 1984 survey questionnaire. We added the capacity to respond electronically, and 336 responses were received. Questionnaires returned by regular mail totaled 1,396, for a grand total of 1,622 responses. This is an increase of 596 responses from the first survey.
We received responses from employees in a wide variety work roles. They represented the views of forest Fire Management Officers, District Fire Management Officers, Assistant District Fire Management Officers, engine operators, hotshots, and dispatchers. The large Other category of respondents was made up of those who worked in reforestation, engineering, recreation, and other specialties (Table 2).
Table 2—Number of respondents by organizational role.
| Organizational Role | Frequency | Percent of Total Study Population |
|---|---|---|
| Forest Supervisor | 16 | 0.9 |
| Forest FMO | 123 | 7.1 |
| District Range | 71 | 4.1 |
| DFMO | 223 | 12.9 |
| ADFMO | 181 | 10.5 |
| Engines | 253 | 14.6 |
| Prevention | 20 | 1.2 |
| Hotshots | 118 | 6.8 |
| Rotor wing | 28 | 1.6 |
| Fixed wing | 6 | 0.3 |
| Dispatch | 25 | 1.4 |
| Fuels | 64 | 3.7 |
| RO Fire | 12 | 0.7 |
| Other | 482 | 27.8 |
| TOTAL | 1,662 | 100.0 |
Two background variables were included in the survey:
Of the 1,662 responses, 118 (7 percent) were female. The vast majority of respondents were male, 1,565 (93 percent). Median years of fire-related work experience of the respondents was 19.
For both surveys, the individual equipment items were grouped into:
All respondents were instructed to evaluate the statement of equipment items applicable to them. They were asked to indicate their degree of interest or priority need to develop each item. A measure of scaled response was used for every item in both the 1984 and 1998 surveys. Respondents were asked to indicate their need for each item by marking the following fixed-choice response categories:
In the 1984 survey, a raw score for each item was calculated. This score was based on the total responses for each item. From the calculated score in the questionnaire, all items were arrayed from high-to-low priority.
Computer analysis partitioning different agencies and different work roles in the agencies was not calculated in this 1998 survey. There is justification for this based on the findings from the 1984 survey. In the summary to that report, it was noted that there is a great deal of similarity between the top-20 lists for each agency or user group. In somewhat of a surprise, there was considerable similarity in the top 20 between the responses of crew foremen, program managers, and line officers. In designing the survey we expected to see a greater difference in the perception of problems and needs between field-level people and those in line or staff positions.
Because of these 1984 findings, to get an overall interagency priority equipment development needs list, we feel justified in collapsing and totaling all the scores on the questionnaire items irrespective of the respondents’ work position or agency affiliation.
Calculation of scores to identify the final priority needs ranking for the current study differed slightly from the 1984 survey. For all 166 items in the new questionnaire, we just added the percentage of respondents who indicated Need and Must have. For example, if an item received a score of 70, this meant 70 percent of all the respondents to that particular equipment item responded either Need or Must have. Another item may have a score of 40, which indicated only 40 percent of all respondents checked Need or Must have. When looking at the priority ranking of each item, it is important to consider how many people actually responded to the particular item by expressing Need or Must have. For example, if only a few people from the total population expressed a strong need for a particular piece of equipment and the majority of the respondents failed to answer the question, then the item would appear high in the rankings. Because of this possible confusion, each item ranked in the 1998 survey includes the percentage of people in the total population of respondents who answered that question. For all of the 20 top-ranked items in 1998, more than 92 percent of the 1,622 respondents answered each question.
The total percentages of respondents who answered Need and Must have for each item was calculated, and like the 1984 survey, all items were ranked in priority from high to low, according to their total percentage scores.
One main goal of the survey is to identify high-priority interagency equipment development needs. There is no formula to identify what raw percentage score constitutes the magic cutoff point, determining whether the item can be labeled High, Medium, or Low development priority. We can only present the ranking of individual items in terms of where each was ranked compared to other items based on the percentage score each received. Presumably, the higher the item ranks on the list, the greater the expressed interagency collective need to develop it.
In the 1984 survey, we focused our report on the top-20 equipment items. We did this by simply counting down 20 from the list of 216, establishing the cutoff point. These items became the top-priority fire equipment development needs. In 1998, we followed the same procedure to identify the top 20 from the complete list of 166 items. By comparing this list to the priority list in 1984, we can identify equipment needs that didn’t exist 13 years ago. This procedure also permitted us to identify equipment needs that have remained on the top- 20 list over time.
 |
E-mail: