2020
DOI: 10.5694/mja2.50751
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Burning to reduce fuels: the benefits and risks of a public health protection strategy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Like all health and economic modelling studies, this analysis has some inherent assumptions, uncertainties, and limitations that are well recognised and have been discussed elsewhere. 36 Our aim was to use consistent and accepted methods to compare the relative health costs of the two types of landscape fires. This required using some additional approaches, which have additional specific limitations: the use of administrative fire data (and its inherent data errors) to identify individual fire events, the association of fire type days with identified LFSaffected days, and the estimation of a relationship between LFSattributable health costs and fire activity measured by area burned.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Like all health and economic modelling studies, this analysis has some inherent assumptions, uncertainties, and limitations that are well recognised and have been discussed elsewhere. 36 Our aim was to use consistent and accepted methods to compare the relative health costs of the two types of landscape fires. This required using some additional approaches, which have additional specific limitations: the use of administrative fire data (and its inherent data errors) to identify individual fire events, the association of fire type days with identified LFSaffected days, and the estimation of a relationship between LFSattributable health costs and fire activity measured by area burned.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Multiple studies have acknowledged the benefits of fuel reduction via prescribed burning in mitigating wildfire risk but have also highlighted the dangers of introducing additional treatment-related smoke 15,[36][37][38][39][40][41] . Such studies have called for increased quantification of air-quality and health trade-offs in forest and fire management decision-making [39][40][41] .…”
Section: Forest Management Impacts On Pm 25 Exposurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Multiple studies have acknowledged the benefits of fuel reduction via prescribed burning in mitigating wildfire risk but have also highlighted the dangers of introducing additional treatment-related smoke 15,[36][37][38][39][40][41] . Such studies have called for increased quantification of air-quality and health trade-offs in forest and fire management decision-making [39][40][41] . Despite these calls, to date, few studies have examined whether forest management-in the form of prescribed burning and mechanical thinning-can reduce overall population exposure to wildfire smoke and whether such actions are associated with reduced adverse human health risks.…”
Section: Forest Management Impacts On Pm 25 Exposurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prescribed burns to reduce fuels are the most common method employed to mitigate the hazard of uncontrolled bushfires. 7 As with all landscape fires, prescribed burns generate smoke containing a range of pollutants. Particulate matter is the predominant pollutant within the smoke that is most strongly and consistently linked with adverse health effects.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%