Conclusion

Both vector and raster approaches offer advantages and disadvantages to assigning priority for treatment of SAD impacted forests.  While vector formats are a somewhat rigid spatial representation, the format is easy to work with for beginner and intermediate users and qualitative data is easily displayed and edited.  Management priorities can be easily identified by determining where recreation infrastructure intersects SAD impacted stands and assigning values based on its qualitative attributes.  This was especially helpful in the road and trail layers which had very clear and interpretable attributes describing their level of maintenance and development which were used to assign priorities.  A drawback to vector data is that it does not effectively display more continuous features that could be useful in identifying stands that are just as equally in need of treatment, such as the visibility of a stand during the autumn season, or the variability of ecological values within an individual stand. 

A raster approach, however, has demonstrated its ability to display these sorts of themes very well.  It is flexible enough to combine different grids and assign numerical values to locations on a much finer scale than can be accomplished in a vector format.  But, it is a more advanced approach that may require more advanced training in the use of ArcGIS. 

With regards to the Uncompahgre National Forest, the two approaches provided varying results.  Vector analysis presents a more conservative estimate with 25,429 acres to be treated. This is primarily because it did not take into account stands that do not intersect a road, trail or recreation site.  Raster analysis will present a more accurate estimate with 50,380 acres to be treated.  This is because the grids are able to take into account stands that are not intersected by recreation or infrastructure but may still be of value for recreation or ecological purposes.