Choice matters: Bureaucratic discretion in hazardous fuels reduction on National Forests

Transcription

1 Choice matters: Bureaucratic discretion in hazardous fuels reduction on National Forests Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire Conference April 27-29, 2010, San Antonio, Texas Ellen Donoghue USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station Cassandra Moseley Ecosystem Workforce Program, University of Oregon Max Nielsen-Pincus Ecosystem Workforce Program, University of Oregon Susan Charnley USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station

2 What factors influence discretionary choices forest managers make to treat hazardous fuels? Photo source: USDA FS Photo source: UC Berkeley What are the implications for community development of these choices? What are implications for how agencies shape the context in which forest managers operate?

3 Implementation Theory Context Policy formulation Policy design Implementation Process Organizational behavior Budgets Staffing Targets Ecol. dynamics Collaboration Attitudes Street-level bureaucratic behavior Performance Outcomes Adapted from Soren Winter, 2003

4 Street-level Bureaucrat (Lipsky, 1980) Forest-level Bureaucrat Execute the rules, programs, and policies established by their agencies Weigh a complex set of sometimes conflicting pressures, rules, expectations, cultural norms, and opportunities when making choices Make choices not on what they are told to do, nor what they think they ought to do, but what they can do Choices influence the lives of their clients

5 Hazardous Fuels Reduction A good case for exploring bureaucratic discretion because of magnitude of fire problem Choices forest managers make affect forest communities Managers weigh factors such as budgets, administrative targets, staffing, ecological dimensions, and local business capacity and political contexts when making choices.

6 Contextual Factors Contextual factors influencing discretionary choice are particularly important when discretion is an intrinsic feature of service delivery of public agencies (Brodkin 1997) Managers have choices

7 Forest Service Context The focus on hazardous fuels reduction occurred in a context of increasing emphasis on performance targets and declining budgets In the aftermath of the large wildfires in the early 2000s, this emphasis translated into increasing hazardous fuels reduction targets, measured as acres treated within and outside WUI

8 The What and the How The use of bureaucratic discretion in making choices manifests itself in two dimensions in the in pursuit of an outcome (the what) the selection of process (the how) (Vinzant and Crothers 1998)

9 The What and the How The what -- type of treatment conducted on the land The how -- the work agent used to implement the treatment

10 The What Fuels Treatments Treatments include a variety of applications mechanical and manual treatment burning treatments

11 The How Work Agents Hazardous fuels reduction treatments is achieved through a variety of work agents. timber sale contracts service contracts stewardship contracts agency workforce others, such as grants and agreements to nonprofit and other governmental entities

12 Analysis We conducted two major analyses to evaluate the degree to which forest manager discretion plays a role in hazardous fuels reduction decisions. Forest Context Analysis Forest-level Bureaucrat Analysis

13 Approach Context Corporate Data Analysis of corporate data for 110 forests NFPORS (acres treated and work agents) Budgets Targets Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Staffing

14 Forest Context Variables Variable Descrip-on Units Source Forest Service Region Categorical USFS Total Budget $1000s RBOs Haz Fuels Reduc-on Budget Line Item $1000s RBOs Hazardous Fuels Reduc-on Targets Acres RBOs Hazardous Fuels Budget/Acre Treated $/acre Calculated Total Staff FTE ABQ Permanent Staff FTE ABQ Part -me/temp/intermieent Staff FTE ABQ Ra-o of Permanent to Non Permanent Staff Ra<o Calculated Na-onal Forest Size Acres USFS Wildland Urban Interface Size Acres LANDFIRE Propor-on of in WUI % Calculated FRCC 1 % Calculated FRCC 2 % Calculated FRCC 3 % Calculated Fire Adapted Ecosystem % Calculated

15 Treatment & Work Agents Variables Variable Descrip-on Units Source Treatments Treatments Using Fire Acres NFPORS Manual/Mechanical Treatments Acres NFPORS Propor-on Acres Treated Using Fire % Calculated Work Agents Timber Sales Acres NFPORS Service Contracts Acres NFPORS Stewardship Contracts Acres NFPORS Agency Workforce Acres NFPORS

16 Approach Survey Data Web survey of Forest Service staff 110 employees (91.6 % response rate) District rangers Fire management officers Fuels specialists Silviculturalists / vegetation managers From 30 national forests in Regions 1-6 Mix of forest with high and low acres treated

17 Survey Forests

18 Survey Variables Variable Descrip-on 1. My forest s fuels reduc<on efforts are strongly influenced by: 1a. the need to accomplish targets 1b. the availability of par<cular types of funding 1c. collabora<on with community groups 1d. analyses we have conducted on the ecological condi<ons of our forest 1e. the desire to produce wood and/or biomass for u<liza<on 1f. the priori<es set in Community Wildfire Protec<on Plans

19 Survey Variables Variable Descrip-on 2. How frequently does your treat acres at the lowest possible cost, rather than trea<ng the highest priority acres? 3. How much does having to forego the 25% receipts to coun<es with stewardship contracts decrease elected county officials support for stewardship contracts around your? 4. How much does having to forego the 25% receipts to coun<es with stewardship contracts decrease community support for stewardship contracts around your? 5. A`er you have done the first few stewardship contracts, what is the rela<ve <me and effort needed to develop and implement stewardship contracts compared to other work agents 6. How o`en is the <me and effort to develop and implement stewardship contracts on your commensurate with the resul<ng ecological outcomes? 7. How o`en is the <me and effort to develop and implement stewardship contracts on your commensurate with the resul<ng socioeconomic outcomes?

20 Forest Context Analysis Multiple regression Response variables Treatments (assessed normality and correlation structure) Proportion of acres treated using fire Work agent (PC analysis on the correlation matrix) Two new variables that maintain most of the information found in the original 4 variables In/Outsourcing variable Stewardship contracting variable

21 Forest Context Analysis Analysis completed by conducting 3 multiple regressions In/Outsourcing variable (dep) Stewardship contracting variable (dep) Proportion of acres treated using fire (dep) Context variables (indep)

22 Forest-level Bureaucrat Analysis Stepwise regression with a backward elimination procedure to better understand decisionmaker perspective and attitudes on the use of treatments types and work agents. Applied 3 regression equations from Forest Context Analysis to forest context variables of survey forests and added survey variables Eliminating variables that did not contribute significantly (p>0.10)

23 Results Forest Context Analysis 3 Regressions, response variables: Acres treated using In/Outsourcing Acres treated using Stewardship contracting Percent of acres treated using burning Response variables Forest Context variables Variables significant at p<0.05, p< 0.01, and p<0.001 levels

24 [ED1]What does dash mean? Change notation to be clear. Results Forest Context Analysis (n=109) Response Variables Independent Variables In/Outsourcing Stewardship Propor-on of acres treated using burning Region *** 0.25* Region *** Region * 0.37*** Region *** NFAcres 0.48*** 0.37*** WUIAcres 0.23* TotBudg 0.61*** 0.58*** Targets 0.42*** 0.22* NonPermFTE 0.22* FRCC1_p 0.30** FireAdptd_p 0.24** Model F 12.15*** 9.75*** 13.68*** Model R

25 Results Forest Context Analysis Outsourcing decisions (timber and service contracts) as ones most likely in forests that are relatively smaller, with fewer WUI acres, larger budgets, smaller hazardous fuel reduction targets, and with ecological conditions inconsistent with historical conditions. (Regions 2 and 6, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Wyoming)

26 Forest Service Regions

27 Results Forest Context Analysis The influence of contextual factors on stewardship contracting decisions less clear. Not used in east (Regions 8 and 9) Low R 2 indicates that factors other than forest context and/or their interactions are important to explaining the use of stewardship contracting Stay tuned for Cass Moseley presentation!

28 Forest Service Regions

29 Results Forest Context Analysis Treatment decisionmaking using fire to treat hazardous fuels Model R 2 = -.58 Fire is used on relatively larger forests, with larger targets, smaller budgets, more non-permanent staff, in fire adapted ecosystems.

30 Forest-level Bureaucrat Analysis Subset of corporate data consistent with 30 forests is survey sample Forest context variables How attitudes and perspectives of decisionmakers of hazardous fuels reduction actions influence the discretionary use of treatment types and work agents.

31 [ED1]Indicates using in-house workforce to achieve targets. Forest-level Bureaucrat Analysis (n=30) Response Variables Independent Variables In/Outsourcing Stewardship Propor-on of acres treated using burning Region ** 0.21* Region *** 0.39*** TotBudg 0.75*** 0.62*** Targets 2.57*** - FRCC1_p 0.26* 0.28* S_Need to accomplish targets 1.03* 0.52* S_Availability of funding 0.43* S_Collabora-on w/ communi-es 0.45*** S_Ecollogical analyses 0.72* S_Need produce wood or biomass 0.55*** S_Priori-es of CWPP 0.49* S_Treat low cost acres 0.47** S_SC_Effect of 25% receipts to county 0.62** S_SC_Rela-ve -me 0.72* Model F 30.79*** 3.01* 11.95*** Model R

32 Results Forest-level Bureaucrat Analysis Outsourcing most likely in forests with larger budgets, smaller targets, and with ecological conditions more consistent with historical ecological conditions.

33 Results Forest-level Bureaucrat Analysis With addition of survey, In/outsourcing decisions not influenced by types of funding to treat acres or the emphasis on treating low cost/low priority acres and are influenced by collaboration with communities and desire to produce wood and/or biomass.

34 Results Forest-level Bureaucrat Analysis Stewardship Contracting. Regions 8 and 9 fall out of model (survey in west only) all the explanatory power of the model is in survey variables rather than context

35 Results Forest-level Bureaucrat Analysis Stewardship Contracting more like in forests where managers believe that accomplishing targets influences their fuels reduction efforts their own ecological analyses are a priority over those priorities set by CWPPs believe that stewardship contracting, once learned, can be done with the same amount or less effort and time as other work agents

36 Results Forest-level Bureaucrat Analysis Fire as a treatment Forest managers in Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming choose fire as a tool less often than their colleagues in other regions of the western US. Attitude that fuels reduction decisionmaking is influenced by need to accomplish targets

37 Doggie Bag ( Take home messages) Results of both context and forest-level bureaucrat analyses indicate that decisions involving in- and outsourcing, stewardship contracts, and using fire as a fire hazard management treatment are conditioned by the context on a forest and by the attitudes and perspectives of managers on those forests.

38 Doggie Bag ( Take home messages) Outsourcing (timber sales and service contracts) occurs where forest budgets can afford relatively more expensive treatments either because of nearby markets or effective budgeting and where relatively fewer treatments are planned on a smaller scale without less WUI. Decisions to use stewardship contracting reflect a complex mix of context factors and attitudes about those factors

39 Doggie Bag ( Take home messages) Forests managers use fire to treat hazardous fuels when they have relatively small budgets and high targets to treat large acreages and the agency crews to do the work (Southeast, R8 and not in western forests R2, R6) On western forests (R2, R6) attitudes and perceptions fire hazard management decisionmakers are important to understanding fire hazard management decisionmaking