Lasswell prize announcement

Announcement

Lasswell prize announcement     

Conflict and Collaboration in Wildfire Management: The Role of Mission Alignment

Responding to large wildfires requires actors from multiple jurisdictions and multiple levels of government to work collaboratively. The missions and objectives of federal agencies often differ from those of state land management agencies as well as local wildfire response agencies regarding land use and wildfire management. As wildfire size and intensity increase over time and associated annual suppression costs range between $2 billion and $3 billion, learning more about the existence and management of perceived agency differences becomes imperative within the academic and practitioner communities. This article examines the extent to which perceived mission misalignment exists among federal, state, and local actors and how well those differences are managed. Findings provide quantitative evidence that mission misalignment is greater within intergovernmental relationships than within intragovernmental relationships. Additionally, findings speak to the larger conversation around intergovernmental relationships within the federal structure and perceptions of the presence and management of potential interagency conflict.

Practitioner Points

• Potential conflict between the missions of federal and state land agencies presents a challenge for disaster management, and differing governmental levels and land‐use mandates may highlight relationships where tensions are likely greater.
• Wildfire managers may need to more proactively address relationships among federal agencies and state and local partners rather than relationships among multiple federal agencies.
• Wildfire management may benefit from increased awareness of—and discussion around—partner agencies’ stated land management philosophies and legal mandates, as structural frameworks, such as the Incident Command Structure, may not alone lead to conflict‐free collaboration.

     

Lasswell prize announcement for volume 43 (2010)

Announcement

Lasswell prize announcement for volume 43 (2010)     

Using multiple methods to understand agency values and objectives: Lessons for public lands management

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) directs agencies to determine their objectives based on what stakeholders value. Identifying, measuring and analyzing values and objectives is a key challenge for public land management agencies. Using R and Q factor analysis we assess the values and objectives within the Leadership Team (LT) of the United States Forest Service (USFS). R-factor analysis demonstrates strong support among the LT for a more preservation-oriented view to manage public lands. Q-factor analysis reveals divergent perspectives among the LT and how the aggregated preservation orientation found with the R-factor analysis plays out according to individual perspectives. The findings illustrate the challenges inherent in identifying what values and objectives exist, how they should be analyzed, and the implications for choosing one set of values and objectives over another in public lands management to fulfill the mandates under GPRA.     

Property rights and property wrongs: Why context matters in fisheries management

Like most wild living resources, fish present acomplex management challenge. Given the failure of command and control regulatory regimes to protect fisheries, scholars and practitioners have advocated the use of property rights to rectify the fisheries crisis. This meta analysis argues that property rights can be used constructively as a regulatory measure in the sustainable management of fisheries, and perhaps in other areas of resource management. However, the use of property rights to resolve resource problems is context dependent, and no single regulatory option or policy is appropriate for the multi-faceted and highly variable world of fisheries management. This paper characterizes and contrasts three regulatory regimes in fisheries management in the United States, while drawing from lessons learned worldwide about fisheries regulation. The paper defines the conditions where property rights might be used appropriately-property rights – as well as where property rights might be used inappropriately – property wrongs.