Evaluating Sensitivity of the Ranking of Forest Fuel Treatments to Manager’s Risk Attitudes and the Importance of Treatment Objectives, Montana, USA

Table 2

Attribute weight scenarios for ERLW, EDRV, and ENRH.

U.S. Forest Service (FS)
Increase ERLW weight by .08 and decrease EDRV and ENRH weights by 0.04
Attribute	FS1	FS2	FS3	FS4	F5
ERLW	.5	.58	.66	.74	.82
EDRV	.29	.25	.21	.17	.13
ENRH	.21	.17	.13	.09	.05
Increase EDRV weight by .08 and decrease ERLW and ENRH weights by 0.04
	FS6	FS7	FS8	FS9	FS10
ERLW	.38	.34	.3	.26	.22
EDRV	.41	.49	.57	.65	.73
ENRH	.21	.17	.13	.09	.05
Increase ENRH weight by .08 and decrease ERLW and EDRV weights by 0.04
	FS11	FS12	FS13	FS14	FS15
ERLW	.38	.34	.3	.26	.22
EDRV	.29	.25	.21	.17	.13
ENRH	.33	.41	.49	.57	.65
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DR)
Increase ERLW weight by .08 and decrease EDRV and ENRH weights by 0.04
	DR1	DR2	DR3	DR4	DR5
ERLW	.38	.46	.54	.62	.7
EDRV	.26	.22	.18	.14	.1
ENRH	.36	.32	.28	.24	.2
Increase ENRH weight by .08 and decrease ERLW and ENRH weights by 0.04
	DR6	DR7	DR8	DR9	DR10
ERLW	.26	.22	.18	.14	.1
EDRV	.26	.22	.18	.14	.1
ENRH	.48	.56	.64	.72	.8
Plum Creek Timber Company (PC)
Increase ENRH weight by .08 and decrease ERLW and EDRV weight by .04
	PC1	PC2	PC3	PC4	PC5
ERLW	.16	.12	.08	.04	0
EDRV	.36	.32	.28	.24	.2
ENRH	.48	.56	.64	.72	.8
Increase ERLW weight by .08, and reduce ENRH and EDRV weights by .04
	PC6	PC7	PC8	PC9	PC10
ERLW	.28	.36	.44	.52	.6
EDRV	.36	.32	.28	.24	.2
ENRH	.36	.32	.28	.24	.2