Meta-analysis comments and questions

Meta-analysis comments and questions by Kim_Ingram, at 11:32 a.m. on 3 March 2010,

Following the FFEH IT meeting on February 17th, I received some comments and questions concerning the meta-analysis. Because of our committment to open and transparent communication, I am posting them here for the public to review and as the place for the UCST to respond.

"The meta-analysis was unpersuasive, due to the great differences among sites and treatments, which cannot be papered over with statistical manipulations. Why has nobody yet done a direct comparison of the SPLAT strategy vs. the DFPZ strategy, using the same terrain, fuel, weather scenarios, area of treatment, type of treatment, and modeling techniques, but varying only the pattern of treatments on the ground? After all, the fundamental difference between SPLAT and DFPZ strategies is the pattern of treatment, and DFPZs are an exception to the Regional policy specifying SPLATs, and that exception was specifically made by Congress to 'demonstrate the effectiveness' of the DFPZ strategy. It isn't enough to say 'it's effective'. You have to say 'How effective', 'compared to what', and 'how efficient, in terms of cost-effectiveness, effect on suppression cost and firefighter safety, and effectiveness at different levels of implementation from a few percent of the landscape treated in early years, to perhaps 30 percent of the landscape treated after 10-15 years. What effect would each strategy have on suppression effectiveness and safety? If these questions aren't important enough to be investigated directly, what is it that would be more important?"

"Can the discussion be continued as an email forum on the web site? Can such a forum include the opportunity for a participant to post other visual input for discussion, for example excerpts from other Forest Service documents?"

This post is a part of the following discussions: