《国家环境政策法》与美国农业部林业局:我们的一致之处,我们的不一致之处,以及原因

F. Fleischman, Cory L. Struthers, Gwen Arnold, M. Dockry, Tyler A. Scott
{"title":"《国家环境政策法》与美国农业部林业局:我们的一致之处,我们的不一致之处,以及原因","authors":"F. Fleischman, Cory L. Struthers, Gwen Arnold, M. Dockry, Tyler A. Scott","doi":"10.1093/jofore/fvab076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In this article, we respond to a critique of our earlier work examining the USDA Forest Service’s (USFS’s) planning processes. We appreciate that our critics introduce new data to the discussion of USFS planning. Further data integration is a promising path to developing a deeper understanding of agency activities. Our critics’ analysis largely supports our original claims. Our most important difference is in our conceptualization of the planning process’s relationship to agency goals. Although our critics conceive of the USFS’s legally prescribed planning processes as a barrier to land management activities, we believe that public comment periods, scientific analysis, and land management activities are tools the agency uses to achieve its goals of managing land in the public interest.\n Study Implications: The USDA Forest Service’s current planning process has been critiqued as a barrier to accomplishing land management activities, but it is also an important tool for insuring science-based management and understanding public values and interests that the agency is legally bound to uphold.","PeriodicalId":23386,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Forestry","volume":"15 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The National Environmental Policy Act and the USDA Forest Service: Where We Agree, Where We Disagree, and Why\",\"authors\":\"F. Fleischman, Cory L. Struthers, Gwen Arnold, M. Dockry, Tyler A. Scott\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jofore/fvab076\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In this article, we respond to a critique of our earlier work examining the USDA Forest Service’s (USFS’s) planning processes. We appreciate that our critics introduce new data to the discussion of USFS planning. Further data integration is a promising path to developing a deeper understanding of agency activities. Our critics’ analysis largely supports our original claims. Our most important difference is in our conceptualization of the planning process’s relationship to agency goals. Although our critics conceive of the USFS’s legally prescribed planning processes as a barrier to land management activities, we believe that public comment periods, scientific analysis, and land management activities are tools the agency uses to achieve its goals of managing land in the public interest.\\n Study Implications: The USDA Forest Service’s current planning process has been critiqued as a barrier to accomplishing land management activities, but it is also an important tool for insuring science-based management and understanding public values and interests that the agency is legally bound to uphold.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish Journal of Forestry\",\"volume\":\"15 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish Journal of Forestry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvab076\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Forestry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvab076","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇文章中,我们回应了对我们早期研究美国农业部林业局(USFS)规划过程的工作的批评。我们感谢我们的批评者在讨论USFS计划时引入了新的数据。进一步的数据整合是加深对机构活动了解的一条有希望的途径。我们的批评者的分析在很大程度上支持了我们最初的主张。我们最重要的区别在于我们对规划过程与机构目标之间关系的概念化。尽管我们的批评者认为美国农业部法律规定的规划过程是土地管理活动的障碍,但我们相信,公众评论期、科学分析和土地管理活动是该机构用来实现其公共利益管理土地目标的工具。研究启示:美国农业部林业局目前的规划过程被批评为完成土地管理活动的障碍,但它也是确保基于科学的管理和理解该机构在法律上必须维护的公共价值和利益的重要工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The National Environmental Policy Act and the USDA Forest Service: Where We Agree, Where We Disagree, and Why
In this article, we respond to a critique of our earlier work examining the USDA Forest Service’s (USFS’s) planning processes. We appreciate that our critics introduce new data to the discussion of USFS planning. Further data integration is a promising path to developing a deeper understanding of agency activities. Our critics’ analysis largely supports our original claims. Our most important difference is in our conceptualization of the planning process’s relationship to agency goals. Although our critics conceive of the USFS’s legally prescribed planning processes as a barrier to land management activities, we believe that public comment periods, scientific analysis, and land management activities are tools the agency uses to achieve its goals of managing land in the public interest. Study Implications: The USDA Forest Service’s current planning process has been critiqued as a barrier to accomplishing land management activities, but it is also an important tool for insuring science-based management and understanding public values and interests that the agency is legally bound to uphold.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信