{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/37556"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/37556","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Ecosystem Management in the USDA Forest Service: A Discourse Analysis","abstract":"This dissertation examines the environmental discourse of the USDA Forest Service, focusing on the language of ecosystem management (EM). A two pronged approach was employed: eleven interviews were conducted with agency executives (chapter two); thirty-three interviews were conducted with agency staff specialists and decision-makers, working at the agency's operational levels (chapter three and four). Differences between how agency executives view EM and how agency operators view EM were identified. Chapter two shows that agency executives generally believed that the process of EM is ingrained in the agency. Chapter three explores this assertion at the forest and district levels, and reveals conflicting stories concerning the current practice of EM. Agency operators explained EM as a process driven by ecological science, but also revealed an alternate planning process. The alternate planning process is driven by the agency's budget and strict employee roles. Through qualitative analysis of interviews with agency operators, a model of how agency operators construct agency planning was created. It illustrates the potential mismatch between planning focused on ecological science and an agency focused on budgets, cost-benefit calculations, and strict employee roles. The model also shows that agency operators described active and passive publics in their constructions of agency planning. Chapter four focuses on these constructs of the public, and shows how they are partly created by agency interpretations of the public involvement processes required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In some cases, the agency applies a standard for public participation (substantive sieve) that requires publics to couch their concerns in scientific or legal terms. Publics that are able to navigate the substantive sieve are typically viewed as active publics, while those that cannot meet this standard are viewed as passive publics. A feedback mechanism was identified between constructs of the public and agency process; constructs of the public shape agency process and agency process shapes agency constructions of the public. The dissertation concludes by showing that agency focus on budgetary targets and the use of the substantive sieve can be understood as attempts to instill accountability into a decentralized agency with an ambiguous mission.","abstract_html":"This dissertation examines the environmental discourse of the USDA Forest Service, focusing on the language of ecosystem management (EM). A two pronged approach was employed: eleven interviews were conducted with agency executives (chapter two); thirty-three interviews were conducted with agency staff specialists and decision-makers, working at the agency's operational levels (chapter three and four). Differences between how agency executives view EM and how agency operators view EM were identified. Chapter two shows that agency executives generally believed that the process of EM is ingrained in the agency. Chapter three explores this assertion at the forest and district levels, and reveals conflicting stories concerning the current practice of EM. Agency operators explained EM as a process driven by ecological science, but also revealed an alternate planning process. The alternate planning process is driven by the agency's budget and strict employee roles. Through qualitative analysis of interviews with agency operators, a model of how agency operators construct agency planning was created. It illustrates the potential mismatch between planning focused on ecological science and an agency focused on budgets, cost-benefit calculations, and strict employee roles. The model also shows that agency operators described active and passive publics in their constructions of agency planning. Chapter four focuses on these constructs of the public, and shows how they are partly created by agency interpretations of the public involvement processes required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In some cases, the agency applies a standard for public participation (substantive sieve) that requires publics to couch their concerns in scientific or legal terms. Publics that are able to navigate the substantive sieve are typically viewed as active publics, while those that cannot meet this standard are viewed as passive publics. A feedback mechanism was identified between constructs of the public and agency process; constructs of the public shape agency process and agency process shapes agency constructions of the public. The dissertation concludes by showing that agency focus on budgetary targets and the use of the substantive sieve can be understood as attempts to instill accountability into a decentralized agency with an ambiguous mission.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Predmore, Stephen Andrew"],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Ph. D.","degree_level":"doctoral","degree_discipline":"Forestry","degree_department":"Forestry","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":["Mortimer, Michael J.","Copenheaver, Carolyn A."],"committee_members":["Stern, Marc J.","Hull, Robert Bruce IV"],"year":2009,"date_issued":"2009-03-30","date_published":"2009-03-30","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:20:08Z","subjects":["National Environmental Policy Act","environmental policy","environmental planning","environmental discourse","administration","federal public lands"],"languages":[],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-04072009-112252"],"render_values":[{"text":"etd-04072009-112252","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/37556","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.committeechair","label":"Committee Chair","values":["Mortimer, Michael J.","Copenheaver, Carolyn A."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Stern, Marc J.","Hull, Robert Bruce IV"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Forestry"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Predmore, Stephen Andrew"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2014-03-14T21:10:17Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2014-03-14T21:10:17Z","2009-04-30"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2009-03-30"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Forestry"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["doctoral"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph. D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["National Environmental Policy Act","environmental policy","environmental planning","environmental discourse","administration","federal public lands"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-04072009-112252"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/37556"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This dissertation examines the environmental discourse of the USDA Forest Service, focusing on the language of ecosystem management (EM). A two pronged approach was employed: eleven interviews were conducted with agency executives (chapter two); thirty-three interviews were conducted with agency staff specialists and decision-makers, working at the agency's operational levels (chapter three and four). Differences between how agency executives view EM and how agency operators view EM were identified. Chapter two shows that agency executives generally believed that the process of EM is ingrained in the agency. Chapter three explores this assertion at the forest and district levels, and reveals conflicting stories concerning the current practice of EM. Agency operators explained EM as a process driven by ecological science, but also revealed an alternate planning process. The alternate planning process is driven by the agency's budget and strict employee roles. Through qualitative analysis of interviews with agency operators, a model of how agency operators construct agency planning was created. It illustrates the potential mismatch between planning focused on ecological science and an agency focused on budgets, cost-benefit calculations, and strict employee roles. The model also shows that agency operators described active and passive publics in their constructions of agency planning. Chapter four focuses on these constructs of the public, and shows how they are partly created by agency interpretations of the public involvement processes required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In some cases, the agency applies a standard for public participation (substantive sieve) that requires publics to couch their concerns in scientific or legal terms. Publics that are able to navigate the substantive sieve are typically viewed as active publics, while those that cannot meet this standard are viewed as passive publics. A feedback mechanism was identified between constructs of the public and agency process; constructs of the public shape agency process and agency process shapes agency constructions of the public. The dissertation concludes by showing that agency focus on budgetary targets and the use of the substantive sieve can be understood as attempts to instill accountability into a decentralized agency with an ambiguous mission."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Ph. D."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Ecosystem Management in the USDA Forest Service: A Discourse Analysis"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.committeechair":["Mortimer, Michael J.","Copenheaver, Carolyn A."],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Stern, Marc J.","Hull, Robert Bruce IV"],"dc:contributor.department":["Forestry"],"dc:creator":["Predmore, Stephen Andrew"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2014-03-14T21:10:17Z"],"dc:date.available":["2014-03-14T21:10:17Z","2009-04-30"],"dc:date.issued":["2009-03-30"],"dc:description.abstract":["This dissertation examines the environmental discourse of the USDA Forest Service, focusing on the language of ecosystem management (EM). A two pronged approach was employed: eleven interviews were conducted with agency executives (chapter two); thirty-three interviews were conducted with agency staff specialists and decision-makers, working at the agency's operational levels (chapter three and four). Differences between how agency executives view EM and how agency operators view EM were identified. Chapter two shows that agency executives generally believed that the process of EM is ingrained in the agency. Chapter three explores this assertion at the forest and district levels, and reveals conflicting stories concerning the current practice of EM. Agency operators explained EM as a process driven by ecological science, but also revealed an alternate planning process. The alternate planning process is driven by the agency's budget and strict employee roles. Through qualitative analysis of interviews with agency operators, a model of how agency operators construct agency planning was created. It illustrates the potential mismatch between planning focused on ecological science and an agency focused on budgets, cost-benefit calculations, and strict employee roles. The model also shows that agency operators described active and passive publics in their constructions of agency planning. Chapter four focuses on these constructs of the public, and shows how they are partly created by agency interpretations of the public involvement processes required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In some cases, the agency applies a standard for public participation (substantive sieve) that requires publics to couch their concerns in scientific or legal terms. Publics that are able to navigate the substantive sieve are typically viewed as active publics, while those that cannot meet this standard are viewed as passive publics. A feedback mechanism was identified between constructs of the public and agency process; constructs of the public shape agency process and agency process shapes agency constructions of the public. The dissertation concludes by showing that agency focus on budgetary targets and the use of the substantive sieve can be understood as attempts to instill accountability into a decentralized agency with an ambiguous mission."],"dc:description.degree":["Ph. D."],"dc:identifier.other":["etd-04072009-112252"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/37556"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:subject":["National Environmental Policy Act","environmental policy","environmental planning","environmental discourse","administration","federal public lands"],"dc:title":["Ecosystem Management in the USDA Forest Service: A Discourse Analysis"],"dc:type":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Forestry"],"thesis:degree_level":["doctoral"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph. D."],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:20:08Z"}