Wildfire Management Strategy and Its Relation to Operational Risk

IF 1.8 3区 农林科学 Q2 FORESTRY
Erin Noonan-Wright, Carl Seielstad
{"title":"Wildfire Management Strategy and Its Relation to Operational Risk","authors":"Erin Noonan-Wright, Carl Seielstad","doi":"10.1093/jofore/fvae009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Changes to US wildfire policy in 2009 blurred the distinction between fires managed for resource benefits and fires with primarily suppression objectives, making management strategies difficult to track. Here, qualitative text is coded from a sample of 282 Wildland Fire Decision Support System Relative Risk Assessments completed on wildfires between 2010 and 2017 to examine the prevalence of different strategies and their associations with risk. Suppression is used most, associated with high risk. Managers discuss intent to suppress even when it is untenable. Monitoring, confine, or point protection are used much less commonly and when risk is low. The Southwest region discusses a diversity of strategies, leveraging landscape barriers from past management to support them; the Northwest discusses suppression or monitoring and rarely links strategy selection to barriers. Based on associations between physical barriers to fire spread, risk, and strategy, creating more barriers may provide a path forward to better implement fire policy. Study Implications: Systematic analysis of text data in wildfire decision documents provides insights into how fires are managed. Most wildfires are still aggressively suppressed despite federal fire policy promoting the use of fire to enhance resources. When managers discuss risk during wildfires, it is evident that physical barriers to fire spread (e.g., rivers, roads, trails, rocky scree), including mechanical fuel treatments, prescribed fires, and previous wildfires, are important factors in operational fire planning. However, management strategies promoting the use of wildfire to enhance ecological resiliency or reduce transmission of future fires to values are used sparingly. Southwest fire managers are relying on past wildfires, fuel treatments, and prescribed fires more so than the Northwest to engage in a full spectrum of fire management strategies. This finding suggests that, at least in some geographies, ongoing investments in fuels management will pay dividends in reducing risk and broadening opportunities to meet federal policy goals.","PeriodicalId":15821,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forestry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Forestry","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvae009","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Changes to US wildfire policy in 2009 blurred the distinction between fires managed for resource benefits and fires with primarily suppression objectives, making management strategies difficult to track. Here, qualitative text is coded from a sample of 282 Wildland Fire Decision Support System Relative Risk Assessments completed on wildfires between 2010 and 2017 to examine the prevalence of different strategies and their associations with risk. Suppression is used most, associated with high risk. Managers discuss intent to suppress even when it is untenable. Monitoring, confine, or point protection are used much less commonly and when risk is low. The Southwest region discusses a diversity of strategies, leveraging landscape barriers from past management to support them; the Northwest discusses suppression or monitoring and rarely links strategy selection to barriers. Based on associations between physical barriers to fire spread, risk, and strategy, creating more barriers may provide a path forward to better implement fire policy. Study Implications: Systematic analysis of text data in wildfire decision documents provides insights into how fires are managed. Most wildfires are still aggressively suppressed despite federal fire policy promoting the use of fire to enhance resources. When managers discuss risk during wildfires, it is evident that physical barriers to fire spread (e.g., rivers, roads, trails, rocky scree), including mechanical fuel treatments, prescribed fires, and previous wildfires, are important factors in operational fire planning. However, management strategies promoting the use of wildfire to enhance ecological resiliency or reduce transmission of future fires to values are used sparingly. Southwest fire managers are relying on past wildfires, fuel treatments, and prescribed fires more so than the Northwest to engage in a full spectrum of fire management strategies. This finding suggests that, at least in some geographies, ongoing investments in fuels management will pay dividends in reducing risk and broadening opportunities to meet federal policy goals.
野火管理战略及其与运营风险的关系
2009 年美国野火政策的变化模糊了以资源效益为管理目的的火灾和以扑灭为主要目的的火灾之间的区别,使得管理策略难以追踪。在此,我们对 2010 年至 2017 年间完成的 282 份野地火灾决策支持系统相对风险评估样本中的定性文本进行了编码,以研究不同策略的普遍性及其与风险的关联。压制使用最多,与高风险相关。管理者在讨论压制意图时,甚至在压制站不住脚的情况下。监测、限制或定点保护的使用率要低得多,而且是在风险较低的情况下。西南地区讨论了多种策略,利用过去管理中的地形障碍来支持这些策略;西北地区讨论的是压制或监测,很少将策略选择与障碍联系起来。根据火灾蔓延的物理障碍、风险和策略之间的联系,设置更多障碍可能会为更好地执行防火政策提供一条前进之路。研究意义:通过对野火决策文件中的文本数据进行系统分析,可以深入了解火灾的管理方式。尽管联邦消防政策提倡利用火灾来增加资源,但大多数野火仍被积极扑灭。当管理人员讨论野火期间的风险时,很明显,阻挡火势蔓延的物理障碍(如河流、道路、小径、岩石碎屑),包括机械燃料处理、规定用火和以前的野火,都是火灾行动规划中的重要因素。然而,提倡使用野火来提高生态恢复能力或减少未来火灾对价值的传播的管理策略却很少使用。与西北地区相比,西南地区的火灾管理者更依赖于过去的野火、燃料处理和预设火灾来参与全方位的火灾管理策略。这一发现表明,至少在某些地区,对燃料管理的持续投资将在降低风险和扩大实现联邦政策目标的机会方面带来回报。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Forestry
Journal of Forestry 农林科学-林学
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
8.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Forestry is the most widely circulated scholarly forestry journal in the world. In print since 1902, the mission of the Journal of Forestry is to advance the profession of forestry by keeping forest management professionals informed about significant developments and ideas in the many facets of forestry. The Journal is published bimonthly: January, March, May, July, September, and November.
×
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