Conflict and Collaboration in Wildfire Management: The Role of Mission Alignment

Abstract

Responding to large wildfires requires actors from multiple jurisdictions and multiple levels of government to work collaboratively. The missions and objectives of federal agencies often differ from those of state land management agencies as well as local wildfire response agencies regarding land use and wildfire management. As wildfire size and intensity increase over time and associated annual suppression costs range between $2 billion and $3 billion, learning more about the existence and management of perceived agency differences becomes imperative within the academic and practitioner communities. This article examines the extent to which perceived mission misalignment exists among federal, state, and local actors and how well those differences are managed. Findings provide quantitative evidence that mission misalignment is greater within intergovernmental relationships than within intragovernmental relationships. Additionally, findings speak to the larger conversation around intergovernmental relationships within the federal structure and perceptions of the presence and management of potential interagency conflict. Potential conflict between the missions of federal and state land agencies presents a challenge for disaster management, and differing governmental levels and land‐use mandates may highlight relationships where tensions are likely greater. Wildfire managers may need to more proactively address relationships among federal agencies and state and local partners rather than relationships among multiple federal agencies. Wildfire management may benefit from increased awareness of—and discussion around—partner agencies’ stated land management philosophies and legal mandates, as structural frameworks, such as the Incident Command Structure, may not alone lead to conflict‐free collaboration.

‘Put the wet stuff on the hot stuff’: The legacy and drivers of conflict surrounding wildfire suppression

“…IC teams), the spontaneity of initial disaster response, and the roles played by volunteers (Draybeck and McEntire, 2003;Moynihan, 2009). For instance, Fleming et al (2015) recently evaluated perceived relationship effectiveness and mission alignment among state, local and federal wildfire suppression organizations tasked with responding to events in the U.S. West. They found significant differences in perceived mission goals and firefighting philosophies across all three levels of governance and significant differences in perceived response effectiveness when federal and state or local firefighting agencies must work together.…”

“…An established body of literature indicates that a rigidly hierarchical approach to hazard management can result in conflict between members of different organizations temporarily subsumed within the system (Moynihan, 2009;Fleming et al, 2015) and between local stakeholders and external professionals attempting to mitigate a disturbance event McCaffrey and Kumagai, 2007). The rigidity of top down approaches to hazard management has also led, in the eyes of some analysts, to notable failures during wildfires and other disturbances (Moynihan, 2009(Moynihan, , 2012Takeda and Helms, 2006;Weick, 1993).…”

U.S. wildfire governance as social-ecological problem

“…2). Annual costs rose more for the USFS than the Department of the Interior (DOI), which has a more flexible fire management mission that allows wildfire to play a more natural role on the landscape and arguably has less WUI to protect than occurs on or near USFS lands (Fleming et al 2015). Costs often ended up exceeding appropriations because of over expenditures on account of increased and unanticipated fire activity in suppression.…”

“…The governance system is an amalgamation of a variety of formal and informal policy directives, programs, budgets, and practices at the national, state, and local levels that seeks to restore fire adapted ecosystems, build fire adapted communities, and respond appropriately to wildfire. It is a federated system of governance in which federal agencies (USDA-USFS, USDOI-BLM, Park Service, BIA, FWS, and DOD) often work with state counterparts, counties, and municipalities through funding, policy directives, practices, and partnerships (Fleming et al 2015). It is impractical to focus on all aspects and so the subsequent analysis hones in on the key areas that should be prioritized.…”

“…Social exogenous controls include international climate change institutions (The United National Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol) or lack thereof (Victor 2004), the U.S. federalist structure that fragments wildfire governance at the local, state, and national level (Fleming et al 2015), and dominance of private property rights regimes that place a primacy on the individual's right to manage their property as they like as opposed to a more collective norm (Ferrier 1995), and long-term land use management practices such as fire suppression, grazing, and logging that have contributed to our existing landscape patterns (Dombeck et al 2004, Kaufmann 2004. The human preference for suppression over fire for resource benefits has had a long lasting impact on the landscape and will continue to do so (Noss et al 2006).…”