Skip to main content

Framework for Identifying Preferred Sustainable Management Actions with Application to Forest Fuel Treatment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sustainability Perspectives: Science, Policy and Practice

Part of the book series: Strategies for Sustainability ((STSU))

  • 707 Accesses

Abstract

A conceptual framework is presented for identifying preferred feasible and sustainable management actions for a coupled human and natural system. The framework involves: (1) determining operationally and financially feasible management actions; (2) selecting and estimating management objectives for those actions; (3) using the weak or strong sustainability criterion to identify feasible management actions that are sustainable; (4) assigning weights to management objectives; and (5) ranking feasible and sustainable management actions. Management actions, objectives, and weights are selected by the manager. Management actions are ranked using a multiple objective evaluation method and utility values estimated with the utility function U(\( {\sum}_{i=1}^n{w}_i{V}_{ij} \)), where i designates management objective, j designates management action, w i is the weight assigned to the ith management objective, V ij is the estimated value of the ith management objective for the jth management action, and \( {\sum}_{i=1}^n{w}_i\,{=}\,1 \). Management objectives are simulated or estimated using biophysical and economic data and models. An empirical application of the framework is presented that uses the Stochastic Efficiency with Respect to a Function method and utility values to rank three preselected fuel treatment strategies and determines preferred treatment strategies for U.S. Forest Service land in Flathead County, Montana for two risk attitudes (i.e., almost risk neutral and strongly risk averse).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Agee JK, Skinner CN (2005) Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. For Ecol Manag 211:83–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anchen Q, Linsen Z, Jianguo L, Weizhong L, Dinghua C (1997) Ideal point method applied in forest harvest regulation. J Forest Res 8:117. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02864982. Accessed 1 May 2018

  • Aplet G, Keeton WS (1999) Application of historical range of variability concepts to biodiversity conservation. In: Baydack RK, Campa H, Haufler JB (eds) Practical approaches to the conservation of biological diversity. Island Press, New York, pp 71–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana (2013) Forest economics. In: Montana quarterly log prices. http://www.bber.umt.edu/FIR/F_LogPrice.Asp

    Google Scholar 

  • Charness G, Gneezy U, Imas A (2013) Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences. J Econ Behav Organ 87:43–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C-T (2000) Extensions to the TOPSIS for group decision–making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cram D, Baker T, Boren J (2006) Wildland fire effects in silviculturally treated vs. untreated stands of New Mexico and Arizona. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Research Paper RMRS-RP-55, Fort Collins, CO

    Google Scholar 

  • Crookston NL (2014) Climate–FVS version 2: content, user’s guide, applications, and behavior. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General technical report, RMRSGTR-319, Fort Collins, CO

    Google Scholar 

  • Deuling MJ, Woudsma CG, Franklin SE (2000) Temporal analysis of habitat fragmentation: Integrating GIS, landscape ecology, and improved RS classification methods. In: 4th international conference on integrating GIS and environmental modeling (GIS/EM4): problems, prospects, and research needs. Alberta, CA, September 2–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz S, Neumayer E (2007) Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement. Ecol Econ 61:617–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duarte BPM, Reis A (2006) Developing a projects evaluation system based on multiple attribute value theory. J Comput Operat Res 33:1488–1504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans A, Perschel R (2009) A review of forestry mitigation and adaptation strategies in the Northeast US. Clim Chang 96:167–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Housing Finance Agency (2010) House price index news release. http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/15454/finalHPI22510.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Finney MA, McHugh CW, Grenfell I, Riley KL (2010) Continental-scale simulation of burn probabilities, flame lengths, and fire size distribution for the United States. In: Viegas DX (ed) Proceedings of the VI international conference on forest fire research. University of Coimbra, Portugal, p 12

    Google Scholar 

  • FireLogistics Incorporated (2011) Flathead County community wildfire protection plan. https://flathead.mt.gov/fireservice/documents/FlatheadCWPP2011.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2018

  • Graham RT (ed) (2003) Hayman fire case study. General technical report, RMRS-GTR-114, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardaker JB, Richardson JW, Lien G, Schumann KD (2004) Stochastic efficiency analysis with risk aversion bounds: a simplified approach. J Agric Resour Econ 48:253–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes SW, Morgan TA (2014) Estimating harvesting costs. University of Montana, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Missoula. http://www.bber.umt.edu/pubs/forest/prices/loggingCostPoster2011.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2018

  • Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) (2003). https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/1904/text. Accessed 1 May 2018

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) Climate change 2007: synthesis report, summary for policymakers. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2018

  • Keane RE, Hessburg PF, Landres PB, Swanson FJ (2009) The use of historical range and variability (HRV) in landscape management. Forest Ecol Manag 258:1025–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keane RE, Loehman RA, Holsinger LM (2011) The FireBGCv2 landscape fire succession model: A research simulation platform for exploring fire and vegetation dynamics. General technical report RMRS–GTR–255, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ft. Collins, CO

    Google Scholar 

  • Linstone HA, Turoff M (1975) The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, University of Michigan, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, Pell AN, Deadman P, Kratz T, Lubchenco J, Ostrom E, Ouyang Z, Provencher W, Redman CL, Schneider SH, Taylor WW (2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317:1513–1516

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Malmsheimer RW, Heffernan P, Brink S, Crandall D, Deneke F, Galik CS, Gee E, Helms JA, McClure N, Mortimer N, Ruddell S, Smith M, Stewart J (2008) Forest management solutions for mitigating climate change in the United States. J For 106:115–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar CI, Stephenson NL, Stephens SL (2007) Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecol Appl 17:2145–2151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. (2011) IMPLAN System (data and software). Stillwater, MN. http://www.implan.com. Accessed 3 May 2018

  • Montana Cadastral (2010). http://svc.mt.gov/msl/mtcadastral. Accessed 1 May 2018

  • Oregon Forest Resources Institute (2018.) When is clearcutting the right choice? https://oregonforests.org/content/clearcutting. Accessed 1 May 2018

  • Oregon State University (2012) ENVISION version 6. http://envision.bioe.orst.edu/Documents/ENVISION%20Developers%20Manual.doc. Accessed 1 May 2018

  • Paveglio T, Prato T, Hardy M (2013) Simulating effects of land use policies on extent of the wildland-urban interface and wildfire risk in Flathead County, Montana. J Environ Manag 130:20–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.08.036. Accessed 1 May 2018

  • Pollet J, Omi PN (2002) Effect of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in ponderosa pine forests. Intern J Wild Fire 11(1):10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prato T (2008) Stochastic multiple attribute evaluation of land use policies. Ecol Model 219:115–124. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380008004043. Accessed 1 May 2018

  • Prato T (2009) Fuzzy multiple attribute evaluation of alternative land use futures. J Land Use Sci 4:201–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prato T (2015) Conceptual framework for assessing the sustainability of forest fuel reduction treatments and their adaptation to climate change. Sustainability 7:3571–3591. http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/4/3571. Accessed 1 May 2018

  • Prato T, Paveglio TB (2014) An integrated conceptual framework for adapting forest management practices to alternative futures. Inter J Forest Res 2014(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/321345. Accessed 1 May 2018

  • Prato T, Paveglio T (2017) Multiobjective prioritization of preselected fuel treatment strategies for public forestland: a case study in Flathead County. Montana Forest Sci. https://doi.org/10.5849/FS-2017-007

  • Prato T, Qiu Z, Pederson G, Fagre D, Bengtson L, Williams J (2010) Potential economic benefits of adapting agricultural production systems to future climate change. Environ Manag 45:577–589. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00267-010-9427-0. Accessed 1 May 2018

  • Prato T, Paveglio T, Barnett Y, Silverstein R, Hardy M, Keane R, Loehman R, Clark A, Fagre D, Venn T, Stockmann K (2014) Simulating future residential property losses from wildfire in Flathead County, Montana. In: Daniels JA (ed) Advances in environmental research, vol 33. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Hauppauge, pp 1–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Prichard SJ, Peterson DL, Jacobson K (2010) Fuel treatments reduce the severity of wildfire effects in dry mixed–conifer forest, Washington, USA. Can J For Res 40:1615–1626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puettmann KJ, Coates KD, Messier CC (2009) A critique of silviculture: managing for complexity. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Qiu Z, Prato T (2012) Economic feasibility of adapting crop enterprises to future climate change: a case study of flexible scheduling and irrigation for representative farms in Flathead Valley, Montana. Mitig Adapt Strat GL 17:223–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raskin R, Cochran MJ (1986) Interpretations and transformations of scale for the Pratt–Arrow absolute risk aversion coefficient: implications for generalized stochastic dominance. West J Agr Econ 11:204–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond CL, Peterson DL (2005) Fuel treatments alter the effects of wildfire in a mixed evergreen forest, Oregon, USA. Can J For Res 35:2981–2995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes JJ, Baker WL (2008) Fire probability, fuel treatment effectiveness and ecological trade-offs in western U.S. public forests. Open Forest Sci J 1:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson JW, Schumannm KD, Feldmanm PA (2017) Simetar: simulation and econometrics to analyze risk. College Station. http://www.simetar.com. Accessed 1 May 2018

  • Roy B (1968) Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples (la méthode ELECTRE). La Revue d’Informatique et de Recherche Opérationelle (RIRO) 8:57–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1986) Axiomatic foundations of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Manag Sci 32:841–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strassert G, Prato T (2002) Selecting farming systems using a new multiple criteria decision model: the balancing and ranking method. Ecol Econ 40:269–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summerfield B, Johnson W, Roberts D (2004) Trends in road development and access management in the Cabinet–Yaak and Selkirk grizzly bear recovery zones. Ursus 15:115–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Department of the Interior (USDA and USDI) (2001) Urban wildland interface communities within the vicinity of federal lands that are at high risk from wildfire. Federal Register, August 17, pp 43384–43435. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/01/04/01-52/urban-wildland-interface-communities-within-the-vicinity-of-federal-lands-that-are-at-high-risk-from. Accessed 1 May 2018

  • Union of Concerned Scientists (2013) Science connections: western wildfires and climate change. https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/impacts/infographic-wildfires-climate-change.html#.WujqM38h2Uk. Accessed 1 May 2018

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research on which this paper is based was supported in part by a grant from the Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems Program of the U.S. National Science Foundation, award ID 0903562.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tony Prato .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Prato, T. (2020). Framework for Identifying Preferred Sustainable Management Actions with Application to Forest Fuel Treatment. In: Khaiter, P., Erechtchoukova, M. (eds) Sustainability Perspectives: Science, Policy and Practice. Strategies for Sustainability. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19550-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics