Skip to Main Content
U.S. Forest Service
Caring for the land and serving people

United States Department of Agriculture

Home > Search > Publication Information

  1. Share via EmailShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Twitter
    Dislike this pubLike this pub
    Author(s): Randall JF Bruins; Wayne R Jr. Munns; Stephen J Botti; Steve Brink; David Cleland; Larry Kapustka; Danny Lee; al. et
    Date: 2010
    Source: Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 6(3):469-483
    Publication Series: Scientific Journal (JRNL)
    Station: Southern Research Station
    PDF: View PDF  (343.5 KB)

    Description

    Ecological risk assessments typically are organized using the processes of planning (a discussion among managers, stakeholders, and analysts to clarify ecosystem management goals and assessment scope) and problem formulation (evaluation of existing information to generate hypotheses about adverse ecological effects, select assessment endpoints, and develop an analysis plan). These processes require modification to be applicable for integrated assessments that evaluate ecosystem management alternatives in terms of their ecological, economic, and social consequences. We present 8 questions that define the steps of a new process we term integrated problem formulation (IPF), and we illustrate the use of IPF through a retrospective case study comparing 2 recent phases of development of the Fire Program Analysis (FPA) system, a planning and budgeting system for the management of wildland fire throughout publicly managed lands in the United States. IPF extends traditional planning and problem formulation by including the explicit comparison of management alternatives, the valuation of ecological, economic and social endpoints, and the combination or integration of those endpoints. The phase 1, limited prototype FPA system used a set of assessment endpoints of common form (i.e., probabilities of given flame heights over acres of selected land-resource types), which were specified and assigned relative weights at the local level in relation to a uniform national standard. This approach was chosen to permit system-wide optimization of fire management budget allocations according to a cost-effectiveness criterion. Before full development, however, the agencies abandoned this approach in favor of a phase 2 system that examined locally specified (rather than system-optimized) allocation alternatives and was more permissive as to endpoint form. We demonstrate how the IPF process illuminates the nature, rationale, and consequences of these differences, and argue that its early use for the FPA system may have enabled a smoother development path.

    Publication Notes

    • You may send email to pubrequest@fs.fed.us to request a hard copy of this publication.
    • (Please specify exactly which publication you are requesting and your mailing address.)
    • We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
    • This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.

    Citation

    Bruins, Randall JF; Munns, Wayne R Jr.; Botti, Stephen J; Brink, Steve; Cleland, David; Kapustka, Larry; Lee, Danny; et al. 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(3):469-483.

    Cited

    Google Scholar

    Keywords

    Integrated assessment, Integrated problem formulation, Valuation, Wildland fire, Decision making

    Related Search


    XML: View XML
Show More
Show Fewer
Jump to Top of Page
https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/35519