![]() Una que reconoce al fuego como un proceso ecológico natural, y así como una amenaza a las personas, comunidades y recursos naturales. Resultados y conclusionesĮncontramos que ambas áreas del Servicio Forestal reconocen el complejo problema en la definición del fuego forestal. Consideramos también las políticas de manejo del fuego del Servicio Forestal de los Estados Unidos, la performance de sus incentivos, y los procesos de toma de decisión en dos áreas de ese Servicio: el Servicio Forestal Nacional, quien es el responsable del manejo de tierras en los bosques nacionales, y el Servicio de Manejo del Fuego y Aviación, que supervisa la respuesta a los incendios forestales. En este documento, observamos el problema de las definiciones antagónicas en la política del Servicio Forestal de los EEUU para el manejo del fuego, la presencia de metas contrapuestas, y cómo estos factores pueden explicar por qué estos cambios en el manejo del fuego han sido ambiguos a pesar de los cambios en su política. These include creating a meta-frame for fire management, improving performance measurement, supporting greater integration of fire and land management planning, increasing transparency and collaboration, and arming agency personnel with the core competencies needed to effectively tackle the complex problem of fire management.Įxiste un amplio reconocimiento que el manejo del fuego en los Estados Unidos debe cambiar y alejarse de las prácticas que lo han llevado a sobre-enfatizar la supresión y limitar la presencia de fuego en ecosistemas forestales. ![]() Opportunities exist to bridge more effectively across land and fire management and reduce incentives to focus on short-term risks during fire events. We suggest that, in the face of goal ambiguity, factors such as performance measurement, a preference for minimizing short-term risk, and professional expertise drive decisions that perpetuate the status quo. However, we raise the question of whether the agency is adequately addressing competing problem definitions in fire policy, particularly given its largely separated structure between land and fire management. We find that both sides of the agency acknowledge a complex problem definition for fire-one that recognizes fire as a natural ecological process, and also as a threat to personnel, communities, and natural resources. ![]() We consider US Forest Service fire policies, performance incentives, and decision-making processes for two sides of the agency: the National Forest System, which is responsible for land management on the national forests, and Fire and Aviation Management, which oversees response to wildland fire. ![]() In this paper, we look at competing problem definitions in US Forest Service policy for fire management, the presence of goal ambiguity, and how these factors can explain why changes in fire management have been elusive, despite policy change. There is broad recognition that fire management in the United States must fundamentally change and depart from practices that have led to an over-emphasis on suppression and limited the presence of fire in forested ecosystems.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |