Resolving conflicts in fire management using decision theory: asset‐protection versus biodiversity conservation

Abstract

Agencies charged with nature conservation and protecting built-assets from fire face a policy dilemma because management that protects assets can have adverse impacts on biodiversity. Although conservation is often a policy goal, protecting built-assets usually takes precedence in fire management implementation. To make decisions that can better achieve both objectives, existing trade-offs must first be recognized, and then policies implemented to manage multiple objectives explicitly. We briefly review fire management actions that can conflict with biodiversity conservation. Through this review, we find that common management practices might not appreciably reduce the threat to built-assets but could have a large negative impact on biodiversity. We develop a framework based on decision theory that could be applied to minimize these conflicts. Critical to this approach is (1) the identification of the full range of management options and (2) obtaining data for evaluating the effectiveness of those options for achieving asset protection and conservation goals. This information can be used to compare explicitly the effectiveness of different management choices for conserving species and for protecting assets, given budget constraints. The challenge now is to gather data to quantify these trade-offs so that fire policy and practices can be better aligned with multiple objectives.

The effects of prescribed burning on epigaeic ant communities in eucalypt forest of South Australia

“…In some instances, frequent, low intensity burning regimes have proved inappropriate due to the declines of fire sensitive species (see Keith et al, 2002). This highlights the need to resolve conflicts between management objectives of fuel reduction and those that relate to sustaining ecological function and biodiversity (Driscoll et al, 2010;Penman et al, 2011). Fulfilling the latter objective is particularly limited by insufficient knowledge of the response of fauna to fire management practices (Clarke, 2008;New et al, 2010).…”

Reptile responses to fire and the risk of post-disturbance sampling bias

“…Developing management practices that conserve biodiversity in the face of altered fire regimes is now critical in many regions of the world (Driscoll et al 2010a;Fattorini 2010;Louzada et al 2010;Pons and Clavero 2010;van Wilgen et al 2010). To better inform management, research that addresses the responses of a range of plants and animals to fire is needed.…”

Short-term changes in summer and winter resident bird communities following a high severity wildfire in a southern USA mixed pine/hardwood forest

“…with minimal human intervention up through to high levels of manipulation, such as salvage logging and active revegetation (Driscoll et al, 2010;Powers et al, 2013).…”