Wildland Fire Science for Management: Federal
Fire Manager Information Needs, Sources, and
Uses
ABSTRACT
Clare M. Ryan and Lee K. Cerveny
A Web-based survey of wildland fire managers in federal agencies in the western United States explored fire science information needs and sources, why
particular sources are used, and barriers to obtaining and using information. The fire managers we surveyed rely heavily on internal agency information sources
(colleagues, technical experts, and resource advisors) and are more likely to face barriers in their ability to access and use relevant information (lack of time,
funding, and personnel) than problems with the quality or availability of data. Information accessibility and applicability are important to managers when
deciding which information sources to use. Managers frequently access research provided by US Forest Service Research and Development specialists and
university scientists through various publications, the Internet, and direct communication with scientists. Understanding the types of information fire managers
need, the sources they access for information, and the barriers they face in obtaining and using information may lead to improved fire science and its
dissemination, as well as more effective and efficient fire management.
Keywords: wildfire management, decisionmaking, social science
R
ecent increases in the extent and severity of wildfire impacts
across the United States have highlighted the need to deliver
accessible, accurate fire science information to fire managers.
More than 190 million acres of land are at risk of stand-replacing
wildfire (Schmidt et al. 2002), posing formidable challenges for
wildland fire managers. Federal agencies have made identifying
managers’ information needs and improving information accessibility and exchange a research priority. However, managers continue to
struggle with how to acquire and apply information, and the scientific community struggles with how to identify and meet managers’
information needs. Our objective was to explore how federal agency
fire managers in the western United States perceive their abilities to
access and use fire science information. In particular, we focused on
the following questions: (1) What information do federal wildland
fire managers need to make management decisions? (2) What information sources do they access? (3) What barriers do they face in
obtaining and using information?
Replies to these questions are provided by survey responses from
145 fire managers in three federal agencies (US Forest Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management). We conducted the survey to describe the opportunities and challenges associated with the exchange of fire science information and to develop
hypotheses for future research.
Federal Fire Management and Research
Wildland fire is a general term describing any nonstructure fire
that occurs in the wildland. Wildland fires are categorized into two
distinct types: (1) wildfires: unplanned ignitions or prescribed fires
that are declared wildfires; and (2) prescribed fires: planned ignitions
(US Department of Agriculture 2009). In addition, wildfires may be
allowed to burn under carefully monitored situations to achieve
resource management objectives (Harbour 2010), events previously
called wildland fire use. In the United States, several federal, state,
local, and private agencies and organizations play a role in wildland
fire management. Federal fire management is shared by the US
Forest Service, several agencies within the US Department of Interior, and the Department of Homeland Security. Although fire
management programs include a broad spectrum of duties and management objectives, fire prevention and control are key priorities for
the majority of federal agencies (Pyne 1982, Omi 2005). Until
recently, fire management and research were guided by the 1995
Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (updated in 2001),
which was the first comprehensive federal fire policy for the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, and by the National Fire Plan,
which coordinated federal fire management efforts in fire suppression, hazardous fuel reduction, and community protection by offering technical, financial, and other assistance. As a result of the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Environmental (FLAME)
Act of 2009, fire management policy is now guided by the Cohesive
Wildfire Management Strategy (Forests and Rangelands 2011).
Several federal agencies are involved in wildland fire management and research activities. The US Forest Service (USFS) has
more than 11,000 employees working in aspects of fire management
Manuscript received August 5, 2010, accepted March 1, 2011.
Clare M. Ryan (cmryan@uw.edu), School of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195-2100. Lee K. Cerveny, US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station, 400 N. 34th St., Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103. We thank all of the busy fire managers who took time from their schedules to participate in our survey. We also thank
Anna Hohl, who administered the survey and conducted the majority of the data analysis. The US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, and the University of Washington’s
Royalty Research Fund provided partial funding for this study. The views expressed here are those of the authors alone. We appreciate the four anonymous reviewers who provided valuable
comments and suggestions and greatly improved the manuscript.
Copyright © 2011 by the Society of American Foresters.
126
WEST. J. APPL. FOR. 26(3) 2011
(USFS 2007). Within the US Department of the Interior, the National Park Service (NPS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
have wildland fire management responsibilities. Other Interior
agencies, including the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of
Indian Affairs, along with state and county agencies also play a role
but were not included in our survey. A variety of public agencies and
academic institutions conduct scientific research related to wildland
fire. USFS Research and Development is recognized as a major
source of fire-related scientific research and technology. Other scientists in federal land management agencies contribute to fire science discovery and dissemination. University researchers often work
collaboratively with federal agency partners in research and management, and organizations such as the Fire Research and Management
Exchange System and the Applied Wildland Fire Research Center
aim to improve science development and exchange.
The Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) plays a role in augmenting existing capacity for fire science by initiating research on key
topics through allocating funds and providing a link between research and management. The JFSP was established in 1998 as a
partnership of the USFS, US Department of the Interior, and the
National Association of State Foresters in direct response to the
perceived lack of consistent and credible information on fuels management available to fire managers. Priorities for the JFSP are to
facilitate collaborative, interagency research projects and to bridge
the gap between fire researchers and fire managers.
Communicating Scientific Information
Public land managers are expected to incorporate state-of-the-art
scientific knowledge (Lachapelle et al. 2003). To accomplish this,
information and knowledge must be exchanged or transferred from
scientific sources to the management community. The concept of
technology transfer is defined as the movement of know-how, technical knowledge, or technology from one organizational setting to
another. A key assumption of technology transfer is that the knowledge or tool being transferred will actually be put to use by practitioners. Transfer agents may choose from a variety of media to share
their science (e.g., publications, direct interaction, on-site demonstration, informal communication) on the basis of the type of transfer object, the needs of the transfer recipient, and the demand environment in which they are operating (Bozeman 2000). Institutions
may use incentives to promote certain mechanisms for knowledge
transfer because of cost or efficiency factors or to meet established
accountability standards for effectiveness.
Knowledge transfer is foremost a social process involving interaction between researchers and managers (Rogers 2003). Differences in organizational cultures between scientists and managers in
federal land management agencies have been identified and described elsewhere, along with the need to overcome barriers in communication and cognition (Cerveny and Ryan 2008, Wright 2010).
Direct contact between researchers and managers is often the most
effective and preferred means of sharing information (Clark and
Meidinger 1998, Graham and Kruger 2002). Communication and
interaction with researchers and other resource professionals is most
effective when scientists are responsive to manager concerns, when
managers take an active role in developing and evaluating research,
and when the interactions are characterized by active participation
and discussion (White 2004, Stankey et al. 2005, Youngblood et al.
2007). Leadership plays a key role in establishing the institutional
structures that prioritize research-management partnerships and allow a learning community to exist (Garvin 1993, Senge 1994).
Table 1.
Response rates for agencies surveyed.
Agency
Distributed
US Forest Service
National Park Service
Bureau of Land Management
Unknown
Total
447
138
254
No. completed
(% of total)
Response rate
(%)
89 (61)
29 (20)
26 (18)
1 (0.7)
145
20
21
10
839
17
Study Approach and Methods
Our exploratory study focused on the western United States
because of the size and concentration of the agencies’ fire programs
and the prevalence of wildland fire and fuels management as a primary management concern. We identified 839 fire managers working in the western United States from publicly available directories
of three federal agencies (USFS, NPS, and BLM) by their job position and administrative level, agency, and administrative region. A
fire manager was defined as a federal employee whose primary responsibility involved planning and implementing wildland fire and
fuels programs (e.g., fire suppression, prescribed fire, wildland fire
use, or fuels management). The survey population included people
with the following titles: fire management officer, fire management
specialist, fire planner, prescribed fire and fuels specialist, district
ranger, field office manager, and natural resource specialist. Our
objective was to reach the largest possible population of wildland fire
managers in the western United States. We focused on fire managers, but they are only one part of the relationship in the exchange of
fire science information. Because of constraints of time and funding,
we were unable to survey fire science researchers for this study.
The survey was administered over a 6-week period using Catalyst
Web-Q, a Web-based survey program that exports responses from
the Internet to a database. Each participant received two follow-up
reminders via e-mail over the course of 6 weeks (Dillman 2000).
The approximately 20-minute survey consisted of 26 scaled questions and 5 open-ended questions. Statistical analysis was conducted
using SPSS, and responses to open-ended questions were coded and
analyzed using an open coding approach that allowed analytical
categories to emerge from the data (Rubin and Rubin 1995). The
survey asked respondents about their primary sources of information, the frequency and nature of contact with information sources,
and barriers they encounter as they obtain and apply information
related to fire and fuels management.
Of the 839 invitations sent, a total of 145 surveys were completed, resulting in a 17% response rate for the overall sample,
although there was some variation among agencies (Table 1). Our
response rate may have been affected by several factors, including
timing and accuracy of mailing lists. The timing of the survey administration was designed to avoid conflict with peak fire season
(June to October). However, fire managers typically work many
hours of overtime during fire season and may have extended leave
during the off-season, when the survey was administered. The mailing lists that we acquired were those most recently published, but
rapid personnel turnover in public land management agencies may
not be captured by current lists.
Problems with response rates for Internet surveys have been reported in numerous studies, and even in populations with access to
the Internet, response rates for e-mail and Web surveys may not
match those of other survey methods (Cook et al. 2000, Couper
2000, Connelly et al. 2003). Survey research methodologists recognize the problem and are devoting enormous efforts to addressing it
WEST. J. APPL. FOR. 26(3) 2011
127
Figure 1.
Information needs of wildland fire managers (n ⴝ 133).
(Tourangeau 2004). Other research has revealed concerns on the
part of potential survey participants that are particularly salient for
Web users, including Internet security and the receipt of electronic
junk mail or spam (Sills and Song 2002). Because of our relatively
low response rate, limited generalizations and interpretations may
be made from the results of this study. Our conclusions should not
be generalized to the larger population of fire managers across all
federal agencies. As mentioned earlier, our intent was to develop
future research questions through this exploratory study.
Of the 145 completed surveys, 61% were from the USFS, 20%
from NPS, and 18% from BLM, which mirrors the original sample
distribution. Responses were evenly distributed across the administrative regions in the western United States for all three agencies.
The majority of respondents (83%) worked at the field level, such as
a forest, national park, or BLM management unit. Primary responsibility areas for survey respondents included fuels management
(79%), fire suppression (72%), prescribed fire (68%), wildfire
(58%), and other fire-related activities (14%).
Information Needs
This section describes information needs identified by wildland
fire managers and discusses their ability to communicate those needs
to specialists within the agency and to the research community.
Communicating Information Needs
The results suggest that fire managers in our sample do value communication with researchers, and 84% of the survey respondents
agree or strongly agree that communication between managers and
researchers is important for fire management. When asked who is
responsible for communicating information needs, respondents
overwhelmingly agreed that managers should tell researchers what
information they need (91.6%) and that researchers should ask
managers what information they might need (93.7%). The process
of joint problem framing and collaborative research is often mentioned as important to the conduct of research that is relevant and
applicable to natural resource managers (Clark and Meidinger 1998,
128
WEST. J. APPL. FOR. 26(3) 2011
White 2004, Stankey et al. 2005). More than 87% of respondents
agreed that managers and researchers should jointly define research.
Identifying Information Needs
In an open-ended question, managers were asked to identify their
greatest information needs for fire and fuels management (Figure 1).
Information related to fuels management was most commonly mentioned by managers in all three agencies, particularly those in the
USFS. This category includes data related to fuel conditions (e.g.,
fuel moistures, fuel loading), mechanical fuel reduction, and the use
of prescribed fire and wildland fire use to meet fuel reduction objectives. Of particular importance was the need to understand the
effectiveness of fuel treatments for minimizing fire risk.
Another important category of information was related to ecological responses to fire (Figure 1), which include fire effects on soils,
wildlife, insects, vegetation, and watershed health, as well as the
control of invasive species and insect-disease interactions. This category also included information on fire history and fire regimes,
which was particularly important to managers in the BLM and NPS.
Managers surveyed also sought information related to social and
policy aspects of fire, such as identifying mechanisms for stakeholder
involvement in planning and decisionmaking and understanding
the social acceptability of various management strategies, attitudes
toward fire preparedness programs, and perceptions of safety and
risk. Weather and climate information were also commonly identified, particularly models that would predict weather effects on fire
behavior and long-term climate monitoring. In the category of
monitoring tools, the greatest need appears to be for updated,
ground-verified GIS layers featuring vegetation types, fuel loadings,
and fire histories. Tools for monitoring long-term fire effects also
were mentioned. Expected fire behavior is an important information need for day-to-day operations and long-range planning. Managers who responded to the survey sought tools to predict fire behavior under current conditions and to predict how climate change
will alter future behavior. Finally, smoke management was mentioned, primarily by USFS managers who sought smoke emission
and dispersion models. Our survey did not ask managers to indicate
whether they feel that their information needs are being met. Therefore, our findings should be interpreted as an indication of the types
of information managers said they needed to make decisions, rather
than a measure of information deficits.
Ability to Communicate Information Needs
Although respondents overwhelmingly professed an interest in sharing information needs with researchers, they appear to be somewhat
limited in their ability to do so. Our study respondents indicated a
greater ability to communicate information needs to researchers
within a respondent’s own agency (82.6%) than to researchers in
other federal (63%), state or local (63.4%), or academic (44.7%)
institutions. This finding is not surprising, given that managers may
be most likely to have professional networks within their own agencies, as well as the literature cited earlier regarding potentially higher
comfort levels in communicating with those perceived to be similar
in terms of values and organizational affiliation. Clearly, more research is needed to fully understand the limitations managers face in
communicating their information needs to researchers both within
and outside their agencies.
Information Sources for Wildland Fire
Management
Understanding where managers acquire information and why
they seek information from particular sources will enable researchers
to more effectively communicate with their clients. We define information sources as places where managers seek scientific information for use in fire management and decisionmaking. It is important
to note that our study examined sources of information, not the
effectiveness of information channels or interactions with those
sources. The concept of source assumes multiple meanings and includes institutional sources (e.g., USFS research station, university)
where scientific research is produced, information exchange sources
(e.g., journal articles, government reports, Internet) where scientific
information is presented to particular audiences, and instrumental
sources used in planning and decisionmaking (e.g., forest plans,
decision models).
Main Sources of Information
In an open-ended question, managers were asked to identify their
top three sources for fire- and fuels-related information. Because no
fixed prompts were offered, response types varied (Table 2), and the
percentage of responses may not indicate the magnitude of importance. A total of 136 managers identified their main information
sources, which were then grouped into three categories of information sources: institutional, instrumental, and informational. Each of
the multiple responses was assigned to a discrete category for a total
of 361 responses from the managers.
Institutional Sources
The sources most often mentioned were internal agency experts and
peers; USFS research stations, universities, other government agencies, technology transfer, or extension agencies; and cooperators,
including private firms and nongovernmental organizations. Our
findings suggest that the managers we surveyed rely heavily on expertise (i.e., technical specialists and resource advisors) and colleagues within their own agency for scientific information. For managers reaching outside their own agency, the USFS was mentioned
Table 2.
Main source of information (n ⴝ 136).
Source of information
Institutional sources
Internal agency (total)
Technical experts
Fire/fuel managers
General
Forest Service research and development
Universities
Other agencies (state/federal)
Technical transfer/extension services
Cooperators, partners, nongovernmental organizations
National Fire Teams
Information exchange sources
Peer-reviewed journals
Internet, web, search engines
Technical reports
Textbooks
Case studies
Instrumental sources
Forest data, GIS, fuel history
Decision models, software
Personal experience; judgment
Planning documents (NEPA)
Federal guidelines and manuals
Appeals, litigation
Total responses
Total
89
42
26
21
38
24
13
6
4
2
31
30
21
3
1
40
33
11
9
4
2
361
NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act.
as an important source of information, particularly the publications
available through the Web site of the Rocky Mountain Research
Station. Participants reported consulting the station website and
talking directly with USFS scientists.
Managers frequently mentioned the use of traditional information exchange sources, such as peer-reviewed journal articles, Internet sites and search engines, online libraries, and technical reports
produced by government and nongovernmental organizations. Although these sources were often noted, they were typically mentioned in combination with institutional and instrumental sources.
Few managers who answered this question relied on information
exchange sources alone. This was a surprise: not a single manager
mentioned workshops, conferences, or training sessions as sources of
scientific information, although within the research community
these are common ways to convey scientific knowledge. Perhaps
managers are not able to participate in such workshops or conferences because of job, time, or other constraints.
Instrumental Sources
Instrumental sources were also mentioned by responding managers,
particularly local data sets, such as GIS layers and fire history databases. Managers mentioned relying on decision models and software
applications for relevant information used in decisionmaking. Planning documents, including fire management and forestland and
resource management plans, were also readily consulted by managers, along with agency manuals, guidelines, and regulations related
to fire management protocols. Several managers cited a frequent
reliance on the information provided by professionals working in
the field or data collected for fire and/or forest management plans.
Perhaps most compelling was the portion of respondents who relied
on personal experience or professional knowledge as a main source
of information. This suggests some interesting future research questions surrounding the interaction of formal scientific information
sources with personal experience and expertise, and how that is
applied in management decisionmaking.
WEST. J. APPL. FOR. 26(3) 2011
129
Figure 2.
Barriers to obtaining information needed for management decisions (n ⴝ 140).
In summary, managers identified many sources of information,
both internal and external. As previously mentioned, we were surprised that managers did not identify training as a main source of
new information. Formal training provided by consultants, universities, and agencies often serves as an opportunity to learn about the
latest scientific findings, as well as models, tools, and other applications for use by fire managers. Ongoing training is an important
value in land management agencies, and participation in training is
a criterion used for advancement and promotion. This leads to
important questions about the nature of information that is included in different training programs.
Reasons for Using Identified Sources
After their main information sources had been identified, managers
rated their level of agreement (on a 1–5 scale ranging from strongly
disagree to strongly agree) with several statements about the reasons
they use those sources. Although particular reasons are not linked to
specific sources in this analysis, the responses highlighted below may
help researchers develop a conceptual framework about characteristics of desired information sources.
The most important reasons for using a particular source were
information accessibility (mean ranking, 4.21), trust in the quality
of data (mean ranking, 4.09), relevance to information needs (mean
ranking, 3.97), and applicability and ease of use (mean ranking,
3.95). Also important to the managers we surveyed was having a
direct professional relationship with the scientist. As Wright (2007)
and other researchers have concluded, managers value the ongoing
partnerships and relationships that occur as a result of frequent
direct communication with researchers and other land management
professionals. The technical nature of the information did not appear to be an important reason for determining the information
source, but it did seem to pose a barrier to use of information.
130
WEST. J. APPL. FOR. 26(3) 2011
Barriers to Obtaining and Using Information
Managers face several institutional, social, and political barriers
to obtaining and using scientific information (Hollstedt and Swift
2000, Warrington 2007). These barriers hinder effective information transfer, which limits the integration of science into management decisions (Stankey et al. 2005). Survey participants were asked
to rank (on a 1–5 scale ranging from never a barrier to always a
barrier) barriers they may encounter when they obtain and use scientific information related to fire and fuels management (Figure 2).
The mean response for almost all of the statements related to
barriers fell within the “sometimes” response category, suggesting
that rather than one or two significant barriers, a combination of
several variables may be interacting to inhibit managers’ ability to
obtain information. Understanding which barriers are most significant for particular information needs will enable researchers to
address the barriers most relevant for their intended audiences.
The most prominent barriers to obtaining information were lack
of funding to conduct research and hire key personnel, and lack of
time; these findings are consistent with those of another study of fire
science exchange in federal land management agencies (Wright
2010). Efforts to improve information transfer often focus on simplifying and “translating” complex technical information for a lay
audience. The form and technicality of information posed barriers
for study participants, and the lack of agency expertise was less of a
barrier. The implication is that given an adequate amount of institutional support, fire managers indicate that they have the technical
expertise to interpret and apply scientific data to address their management concerns. It could also be a signal that efforts to communicate complex information to managers and other audiences have
been successful. Information “overload” appears to be more of a
barrier than a general lack of information or information applicability, which is consistent with other reports suggesting that managers
are often overwhelmed by the amount of information available to
Figure 3.
Barriers to information use (n ⴝ 142).
them and desire concise syntheses of research (White 2004, Youngblood et al. 2007). Simply providing more information is not sufficient—managers equipped with adequate resources and incentives
to seek out and interpret new information are more likely to use that
information.
Respondents were asked to rank (on a 1–5 scale ranging from
never a barrier to always a barrier) the most prominent barriers they
face as they attempt to use the scientific information they have
accessed, and we saw evidence of both internal and external barriers
(Figure 3). Managers participating in this survey indicated that they
are constrained by limited resources more than a lack of expertise or
information. Public scrutiny of management decisions also appears
to be a barrier to the use of science. When there are situations where
trust of federal land agencies comes into play, land management
decisions face potential for increased scrutiny and litigation. This
lack of public trust can limit managers’ discretion and flexibility in
making decisions, pushing them to adopt a safe or proven option
rather than apply new scientific knowledge to address the problem
(Stankey et al. 2005). Similarly, most respondents cited competing
agency policies, agency acceptance of certain management options,
and flexibility in decisions as “sometimes” or “often” barriers to
using information, indicating the presence of internal institutional
barriers. Notably, the most often mentioned barriers reflected both
capacity concerns and public perceptions.
Discussion
Although fire managers responding to our survey value the involvement of researchers in addressing information needs, they face
constraints in their ability to convey their information needs to
researchers. Communication occurs to some extent within their
own agencies, but communication happens far less frequently with
external organizations, such as research stations and universities, as
well as with other fire management agencies, both federal and state.
Although characteristics of the information itself (i.e., relevance,
technicality, form) are important considerations as managers seek
and use information, organizational and societal factors may be
more significant barriers.
Consistent with the literature cited herein, our study respondents
rely on a combination of scientific research, professional experience,
and local data when making fire management decisions. The information sources these fire managers use depend on a variety of factors, such as the particular issue they are addressing, time and funding available to seek information, personal experience and expertise,
and accessibility of information resources. Of the factors we examined, information accessibility, quality, applicability, and relevance
are the most important factors that determine which sources are
used. Direct contact with peers and internal agency specialists appears to far outweigh contact with research institutions or the use of
science products, such as peer-reviewed journal articles or technical
reports. The reliance on local, internal information resources could
be important because these sources provide information that is
highly relevant to their specific management needs and are easily
accessible with minimal effort. In other words, given that time is the
scarcest commodity for many resource managers, using locally available information sources is more efficient and may also be a function
of the personal and professional relationships that managers develop
with colleagues and the common language that is cultivated within
agencies. These findings suggest that the perceived quality of the
information is not the only driver in selecting an information
source.
The largest barriers to information access appear to be related to
waning agency capacity—the lack of funding to engage in research
or hire personnel and the lack of time to find relevant information.
This suggests that existing information is potentially valuable, but
managers may need help in finding ways to improve their ability to
access existing information. Similarly, barriers to the use of information for decisionmaking include lack of both personnel and time
to interpret and apply information. No one identified the lack of
applicable information or adequate expertise to understand scientific research as barriers. Rather, a lack of organizational capacity to
WEST. J. APPL. FOR. 26(3) 2011
131
gather, interpret, and apply the overwhelming amount of information available appears to be the biggest challenge.
Implications of our study suggest that developing both inter- and
intra-agency science communication networks might be one of the
best ways to expand information transfer for fire science. In the past,
professional networks leading to science exchange have been informal and situational, based on alliances created in universities, training programs, and professional affiliations. With many agencies facing budget constraints, informal opportunities for the development
of professional networks between managers and scientists may be
limited and insufficient. One possible solution is for agencies to
invest in developing professional networks that extend across agencies in the fire management community. Organizations such as the
Joint Fire Science Program, which sponsors research that cross-cuts
agencies, and joint working relationships established previously under the National Fire Plan and now under the Cohesive Wildfire
Management Strategy, form the base on which to build these
networks.
Our findings also suggest that fire management professionals
within agencies possess a significant amount of professional knowledge and expertise that guides management actions and decisions,
particularly when capacity constraints make it difficult to identify
access, adapt, and apply scientific information. Learning how to tap
into this “strongbox” of professional experiential knowledge so it
can be shared more widely is a logical next step in terms of policy
change. A database of fire management cases and examples of successful science applications would be highly useful to share both
within and between agencies. Developing a means for communicating these strategies and approaches as professional case studies could
be a first step.
Further research is needed to fully understand what factors limit
or enhance managers’ ability to acquire and use scientific information. Our study suggests that the use of information may be a function of five major attributes: accessibility, quality, applicability, ease,
and relevance. Fire managers in our study do not appear to suffer
from the absence of relevant, high-quality science; rather, they struggle with finding the time and resources to tap into the pool of
information. Although the quality of the science and relevance of
the information is important to managers, barriers to accessing and
applying the information were more pronounced. The five factors
identified here suggest a useful model to test in future studies.
Just as agencies share physical resources for fire suppression, the
sharing of scientific information and research resources among
agencies may increase the capacity of managers to effectively and
efficiently manage wildland fire. Managers and researchers at all
levels of an organization together share responsibility for initiating
and maintaining research-management partnerships that can help
overcome the many institutional, structural, and social barriers to
effective communication. Agency leadership plays a key role in providing both the resources and incentives for communicating and
collaborating with researchers. In addition to providing resources
such as funding and personnel, agency leadership can provide incentives for managers to seek new information, build partnerships
with researchers, and share information with other fire professionals.
Literature Cited
BOZEMAN, B. 2000. Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and
theory. Res. Policy 29:627– 655.
132
WEST. J. APPL. FOR. 26(3) 2011
CERVENY, L.K., AND C.M. RYAN. 2008. Agency capacity for recreation science and
management: The case of the U.S. Forest Service. US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PNW-GTR-757. 80 p.
CLARK, R.N., AND E.E. MEIDINGER. 1998. Integrating science and policy in natural
resource management: Lessons and opportunities from North America. US For. Serv.
Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-441. 22 p.
CONNELLY, N.A., T.L. BROWN, AND D. DECKER. 2003. Factors affecting response
rates to natural resource-focused mail surveys: Empirical evidence of declining
rates over time. Soc. Natur. Resour. 16:541–549.
COOK, C., F. HEATH, AND R.L. THOMPSON. 2000. A meta-analysis of response rates
in web- or internet-based surveys. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 60:821– 826.
COUPER, M.P. 2000. Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opin.
Q. 64:464 – 494.
DILLMAN, D. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. 2nd Ed.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 464 p.
FORESTS AND RANGELANDS. A national cohesive wildfire management strategy.
Available online at www.forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/documents/reports/
1_CohesiveStrategy03172011.pdf; last accessed May 23, 2011.
GARVIN, D. 1993. Building a learning organization. Harvard Bus. Rev. 71(4):78 –91.
GRAHAM, A., AND L. KRUGER. 2002. Research in adaptive management: Working
relations and the research process. US For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-538. 49 p.
HARBOUR, T. 2010. Managing wildfire for resource benefits. Fire Manag. Today
70(1):4.
HOLLSTEDT, C., AND K. SWIFT. 2000. Barriers to integrating science into policy and
practice. P. 33–34 in From science to management and back: A science forum for
southern interior ecosystems of British Columbia. Hollstedt, C., K. Sutherland, and
T. Innes (eds.). Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership,
Kamloops, B.C., Canada. 146 p.
LACHAPELLE, P.R., S.E. MCCOOL, AND M.E. PATTERSON. 2003. Barriers to effective
natural resource planning in a “messy” world. Soc. Natur. Resour.
16(6):473– 490.
OMI, P.N. 2005. Forest fires: A reference handbook. Contemporary World Press, Santa
Barbara, CA. 347 p.
PYNE, S.J. 1982. Fire in America: A cultural history of wildland and rural fire.
University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 204 p.
ROGERS, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. The Free Press, New York, NY.
551 p.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION. Rocky Mountain Research Station
publications. Available online at www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications/; last accessed
Feb. 12, 2011.
RUBIN, H., AND I. RUBIN. 1995. Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 302 p.
SCHMIDT, K.M., J.P. MENAKIS, C.C. HARDY, W.J. HANN, AND D.L. BUNNELL.
2002. Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel
management. US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-87. 41 p.
SENGE, P.M. 1994. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. Doubleday/Currency, New York, NY. 424 p.
SILLS, S.J., AND C. SONG. 2002. Innovations in survey research: An application of
web surveys. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 20:22–30.
STANKEY, G.H., R.N. CLARK, AND B.T. BORMANN. 2005. Adaptive management of
natural resources: Theory, concepts, and management institutions. US For. Serv.
Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-654. 73 p.
TOURANGEAU, R. 2004. Survey research and societal change. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
(55):775– 801.
US FOREST SERVICE (USFS). 2007. Fire and aviation management. Available online at
www.fs.fed.us/fire/; last accessed Jan. 20, 2011.
US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 2009. Guidance for implementation of federal
wildland fire policy. Available online at www.nifc.gov/policies/guidance/
GIFWFMP.pdf; last accessed Jan. 20 2011.
WARRINGTON, G.E. 2007. Organizing information for natural resource
management. P. 47–53 in Proc. of International conference on transfer of forest
science knowledge and technology. US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-726. 255 p.
WHITE, S. 2004. Bridging the worlds of fire managers and researchers: Lessons and
opportunities from the wildland fire workshops. US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PNW-GTR-599. 41 p.
WRIGHT, V. 2007. Communication barriers to applying federal research in support
of land management in the United States. P. 56 – 62 in Proc. of International
conference on transfer of forest science knowledge and technology. US For. Serv. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-726. 255 p.
WRIGHT, V. 2010. Influences to the success of fire science delivery: Perspectives of potential
fire/fuels science users: Final report to the Joint Fire Science Program. Joint Fire
Science Program Project no. 04-4-2-01. 62 p.
YOUNGBLOOD, A., H. BIGLER-COLE, C. FETTIG, C. FIEDLER, E. KNAPP, J.
LEHMKUHL, K. OUTCALT, C. SKINNER, S. STEPHENS, AND T. WALDROP. 2007.
Making fire and fire surrogate science available: A summary of regional workshops
with clients. US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-727. 59 p.