Institutional Effects on Decision Making on Public Lands: An Interagency Examination of Wildfire Management

• Date: 01 March 2012
• Published date: 01 March 2012
• Author: Derek Reiners
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02486.x

Derek Reiners is visiting assistant

professor of political science at the

University of Florida. He earned his doctoral

degree at Indiana University, where he

studied in the Workshop in Political Theory

and Policy Analysis. His research examines

the institutional and cognitive dimensions

of decision making in public policy.

E-mail: dreiners@uf‌l .edu

An Interagency Examination of Wildf‌i re Management 177

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 72, Iss. 2, pp. 177–186. © 2011 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.111/j.1540-6210.2011.02486.x.

Derek Reiners

University of Florida

A signif‌i cant increase in catastrophic wildf‌i res in the

interior West of the United States has left public land

agencies scrambling to reduce dangerous fuel loads and

manage forests according to an ecological understanding

of f‌i re and forest health. However, this has not

translated into standardized on-the-ground f‌i re and fuel

management in public land agencies. Dif‌f erent on-the-

ground management practices raise questions about the

extent to which ecosystems management is being utilized

and how well land agencies are adapting to their new

responsibilities.  is study employs an institutional analysis

and development framework to examine how and why

on-the-ground decisions and outcomes dif‌f er. Decisions

and outcomes are discussed as a function of the multiple

layers of institutions that guide and constrain the decision

processes of line of‌f‌i cers who are responsible for developing

and executing f‌i re and fuel management projects.

Over the past 20 years, large wildf‌i res in the

interior West of the United States have

become more frequent, intense, destruc-

tive, and expensive. Since the turn of the millennium,

the American West has witnessed some of the worst

f‌i re seasons ever recorded, with seven Western states

experiencing their worst and largest f‌i res in the last

100 years.  e 2002 Rodeo-Chediski f‌i re in Arizona,

for example, consumed almost half a million acres

in just a few days. In contrast, a f‌i re of 500 acres was

considered extremely serious 30 years ago. Fueled

by drought, infestation, and overgrowth, however,

so-called mega-f‌i re s are increasingly common. Figure 1

illustrates the surge of wildf‌i re in the Western United

States.

Charged with managing 193 million acres of mainly

forestland, 80 percent of which is located in the

Western states, the U.S. Forest Service has attracted

signif‌i cant negative attention over the increase in

catastrophic f‌i res and concomitant forest conditions.

Part of the criticism has focused on past decades of

utilitarian rather than ecologically oriented manage-

ment policies, highlighted by a total f‌i re suppression

policy that gradually compounded forest fuels and f‌i re

risks (Busenberg 2004; Davis 2001; Nelson 2000).

Having of‌f‌i cially abandoned the f‌i re suppression re-

gime in the 1970s, the Forest Service nevertheless has

received heavy criticism for its struggle to adequately

reduce fuels and restore forest conditions—a problem

thought to be rooted in the agency’s inability to trans-

form its decision making and organizational structure

to accommodate true ecosystems management (GAO

2002, 2007; NAPA 2001).

Deteriorating forest conditions and heightened f‌i re

risks are not exclusive to the national forests. Some

of the most destructive f‌i res in recent years started

within the boundaries of other public land agencies.1

Indeed, unusually f‌i re-prone forest conditions have

become widespread throughout the interior West.

Consequently, fuel reduction and restoration have be-

come central land management objectives for almost

all public land agency units with responsibility for

forestland. But even though they share similar forest

conditions, wildf‌i re threats, fuel management goals,

and even many regulatory and compliance procedures,

public land agencies exhibit systematic dif‌f erences in

their fuel reduction strategies, techniques, and out-

comes.  is article examines why this is the case and,

moreover, why the Forest Service has attracted such a

large share of negative attention regarding its ef‌f orts

(or lack thereof).

While the particular focus here is on f‌i re and fuel

management, systematic dif‌f erences in on-the-ground

Institutional Ef‌f ects on Decision Making on Public Lands: An

Interagency Examination of Wildf‌i re Management

Source: Intermountain Fire Sciences Lab, courtesy of Robert Mutch.

Figure 1 Millions of Acres Burned by Wildf‌i re in 11

Western U.S. States