Factors that influence administrative appeals of proposed USDA forest service fuels reduction actions

Forest Science

Volumn 52, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 477-488

  Laband, David N ^a   González Cabán, Armando ^b   Hussain, Anwar ^c  

^a AUBURN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

^c MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bivariate probit with sample selection; Forest fuels reduction; Forest policy; Healthy Forests and Restoration Act

Indexed keywords

BIVARIATE PROBIT WITH SAMPLE SELECTION; FOREST FUELS REDUCTION; FOREST POLICY; HEALTHY FORESTS AND RESTORATION ACT;

FUEL ECONOMY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

FORESTRY;

FORESTRY; FUELS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK MANAGEMENT;

MAMMALIA;

EID: 33751084305     PISSN: 0015749X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. BURCHFIELD, J.A., J.M. MILLER, S. ALLEN, R.F. SCHROEDER, AND T. MILLER. 2003. Social implications of alternatives to clearcutting on the Tongass National Forest: An exploratory study of residents' responses to alternative silvicultural treatments at Hanus Bay, Alaska. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-575.
2. BURLEY, C.H. 2004. Appeals and litigation: A view from industry. J. For. 102(2):49-50.
3. DICKMAN, A. 1978. Reduced fire frequency changes composition of a ponderosa pine stand. J. For. 76(1):24-25.
4. GERICKE, K.L., AND J. SULLIVAN. 1994. Public participation and appeals of Forest Service plans-An empirical examination. Soc. Nat. Res. 7:125-135.
5. GERMAIN, R.H., D.W. FLOYD, AND S.V. STEHMAN. 2001. Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public participation process. For. Pol. Econ. 3:113-124.
6. GONZÁLEZ-CABÁN, A. 1997. Managerial and institutional factors affect prescribed burning costs. For. Sci. 43(4):535-543.
7. GONZÁLEZ-CABÁN, A., A.J. LOOMIS, AND R. GREGORY. 1995. Protecting Oregon old-growth forests from fires: How much is it worth? USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-156:139-143.
8. GREENE, W.H. 2003. Econometric analysis. Pearson Education Inc., Delhi, India.
9. HAMINISHI, C.M., F.G. WAGNER, J. O'LAUGHLIN, AND T.M. GORMAN. 1995. Idaho's timber harvest projections by ownership to 2000: An issue-based survey of resource managers. W. J. Appl. For. 10:109-113.
10. JONES, E.S., AND C.P. TAYLOR. 1995. Litigating agency change: The impact of courts and administrative appeals process on the Forest Service. Pol. Stud. J. 23:310-336.
11. JUNGWIRTH, L. 2004. Community wildfire protection plans from four angles: Good neighbors. J. For. 102(6):4-5.
12. LOOMIS, J.B., S.B. LUCAS, AND A. GONZÁLEZ-CABÁN. 2001. Prescribed fire and public support: Knowledge gained, attitudes changed in Florida. J. For. 99(7):18-22.
13. MACCLEERY, D.W. 1995. The way to a healthy future for National Forest ecosystems in the west: What role can silviculture and prescribed fire play? USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-267:37-45.
14. MCFADDEN, D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. P. 105-142 in Frontiers in econometrics, P. Zarembka (ed.). Academic Press, New York.
15. METRICK, A., AND M.L. WEITZMAN. 1996. Patterns of behavior in endangered species protection. Land Econ. 72:1-16.
16. O'LAUGHLIN, J.O. 2004. Analysis framework for sustainable forestry: National forest case study. J. For. 102(2):34-41.
17. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 2002. Healthy forests: An initiative for wildfire prevention and stronger communities. Policy document, August 22.
18. PYNE, S.J., P.L. ANDREWS, AND R.D. LAVEN. 1996. Introduction to wildland fire, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
19. STEVENS, W.K. 2000. U.S. found to be a leader in its diversity of wildlife. New York Times, March 16:A18.
20. TEICH, G.M., R.J. VAUGHN, AND H.J. CORTNER. 2004. National trends in the use of Forest Service administrative appeals. J. For. 102(2):14-19.
21. TRACHTMAN, P. 2003. Fire fight. Smithsonian 34(5):42.
22. USDA. 1988. Forest Service proposed changes in appeals process. NEWS, May 13:626-688, Office of Information, Washington, DC.
23. USDA. 2003. Fact sheet-Implementation of the Healthy Forest Initiative. Release No. fs0405.03.
24. USDA FOREST SERVICE. 2002. The process predicament: How statutory, regulatory, and administrative factors affect national forest management. Washington, DC.
25. US GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE. 2001. Forest Service: Appeal and litigation of fuel reduction projects. GAO-01-1114R, August 31. Washington, DC.
26. US GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE. 2003a. Information on Forest Service decisions involving fuels reduction activities. GAO-03-689R, May 14. Washington, DC.
27. US GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE. 2003b. Information on appeals and litigation involving fuels reduction activities. GAO-04-52, Washington, DC.
28. WEITZMAN, M.L., AND A. METRICK. 1998. Conflicts and choices in biodiversity preservation. J. Econ. Persp. 12(3):21-34.
29. WINTER, G., C.A. VOGT, AND S. MCCAFFREY. 2004. Examining social trust in fuels management strategies. J. For. 102(6):8-15.
30. YODER, J., AND K. BLATNER. 2004. Incentives and timing of prescribed fire for wildfire risk management. J. For. 102(6):38-41.
31. ZIPPERER, W. 2005. Quantifying and ranking the flammability of ornamental shrubs used in the southern United States. Paper presented at Emerging issues along urban/rural interfaces: Linking science and society, conference held in Atlanta, Georgia, March 13-16, 2005.