First Approximations of Prescribed Fire Risks Relative to Other Management Techniques Used on Private Lands

Abstract

Fire is widely recognized as a critical ecological and evolutionary driver that needs to be at the forefront of land management actions if conservation targets are to be met. However, the prevailing view is that prescribed fire is riskier than other land management techniques. Perceived risks associated with the application of fire limits its use and reduces agency support for prescribed burning in the private sector. As a result, considerably less cost-share support is given for prescribed fire compared to mechanical techniques. This study tests the general perception that fire is a riskier technique relative to other land management options. Due to the lack of data available to directly test this notion, we use a combination of approaches including 1) a comparison of fatalities resulting from different occupations that are proxies for techniques employed in land management, 2) a comparison of fatalities resulting from wildland fire versus prescribed fire, and 3) an exploration of causal factors responsible for wildland fire-related fatalities. This approach establishes a first approximation of the relative risk of fatality to private citizens using prescribed fire compared to other management techniques that are readily used in ecosystem management. Our data do not support using risks of landowner fatalities as justification for the use of alternative land management techniques, such as mechanical (machine-related) equipment, over prescribed fire. Vehicles and heavy machinery are consistently leading reasons for fatalities within occupations selected as proxies for management techniques employed by ranchers and agricultural producers, and also constitute a large proportion of fatalities among firefighters. Our study provides the foundation for agencies to establish data-driven decisions regarding the degree of support they provide for prescribed burning on private lands.

Kentucky bluegrass invaded rangeland: Ecosystem implications and adaptive management approaches

“…Finally, it is the fear of a fire escaping control that keeps much-needed prescribed burning from occurring. Research indicates actual risk is less than perceived risk, 65 but mental images of a prescribed burn turning into a raging wildfire are persistent. While damage to rangelands, if any, from an escaped prescribed burn can be remedied, infrastructure can be destroyed and smoke on roadways can cause fatal accidents.…”

Smokey comes of age: unmanned aerial systems for fire management

“…UAS-based fire ignitions can conduct the types of techniques used for interior ignitions, thereby lessening the need to put ground crews in danger. Major causes of firefighter fatalities include all-terrain vehicle accidents; burnover and entrapment; and heat exhaustion (Twidwell et al 2015). In our initial trials, we used UAS to conduct multi-point source ignitions and to mimic the movement and behavior of fire fronts used in prescribed fire operations by positioning delayed-ignition balls in close proximity to each other (although we acknowledge that these fire fronts are less continuous than those propagated by a continuous ignition source, such as a handheld drip torch).…”

“…), and some federal agencies in the US have now established internal policies that prevent their personnel from direct involvement with prescribed fires conducted on private lands (Twidwell et al . ). Such aversions have produced more limited fire prescriptions, with the pathological effect of creating ever‐tightening windows of meteorological and environmental conditions under which deliberate ignitions are allowed (Twidwell et al .…”

“…With regard to wildfire suppression, US federal agencies spent US$15 billion from 2006-2015, which was more than the total amount of money expended on similar efforts in the previous 20 years (NIFC nd). Risk aversion is increasing among agencies that have historically provided proactive fire management (DellaSala et al 2004;Hawbaker et al 2013), and some federal agencies in the US have now established internal policies that prevent their personnel from direct involvement with prescribed fires conducted on private lands (Twidwell et al 2015). Such aversions have produced more limited fire prescriptions, with the pathological effect of creating evertightening windows of meteorological and environmental conditions under which deliberate ignitions are allowed (Twidwell et al 2016).…”

Synthesis Paper: Assessment of Research on Rangeland Fire as a Management Practice

“…However, implementation of prescribed burning as a conservation practice in the rangeland management profession has been overshadowed by implementation of other practices, especially prescribed grazing. Disproportionate implementation of these two categories of practices is influenced by complexity of social interactions among agencies, public perception of risk vs reward, and public policy (Twidwell et al 2015). Social and policy concerns differ greatly across rangeland regions, ranging from complete acceptance in fire cultures (e.g., Flint Hills of Kansas and Oklahoma) to attempts to completely remove fire from the landscape (e.g., Great Basin).…”