Valuing fire planning alternatives in forest restoration: Using derived demand to integrate economics with ecological restoration

Rideout, Geoff; Ziesler, Pamela S.; Kernohan, N.

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.03.023

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Future developments of our model would include a wider range of values at risk, particularly non-market values, such as lives, injuries, social disruption and environmental values. For this, further research is needed on how non-market values are affected by bushfires in the long term (Venn and Calkin 2011;Rideout et al 2014). Given the high number of nonmarket values affected by wildfires, several researchers have already emphasised the need to better integrate non-market values in economic analyses of fire management (Rideout et al 1999;Thompson and Calkin 2011;Venn and Calkin 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where to prescribe burn: the costs and benefits of prescribed burning close to houses

Florec

Burton

Pannell

et al. 2020

Int. J. Wildland Fire

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prescribed burning is used in Australia as a tool to manage fire risk and protect assets. A key challenge is deciding how to arrange the burns to generate the highest benefits to society. Studies have shown that prescribed burning in the wildland–urban interface (WUI) can reduce the risk of house loss due to wildfires, but the costs and benefits of different arrangements for prescribed burning treatments have rarely been estimated. In this study, we use three different models to explore the costs and benefits of modifying the spatial arrangement of prescribed burns on public land, using the south-west of Western Australia as a case study. We simulate two hypothetical scenarios: landscape treatments and WUI treatments. We evaluate the long-term costs and benefits of each scenario and compare the results from the three models, highlighting the management implications of each model. Results indicate that intensifying prescribed burning treatments in public land in the WUI achieves a greater reduction in damages compared with applying the majority of the treatments in rural areas. However, prescribed burning in the WUI is significantly more expensive and, despite additional benefits gained from this strategy, in most cases it is not the most economically efficient strategy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where to prescribe burn: the costs and benefits of prescribed burning close to houses

Florec

Burton

Pannell

et al. 2020

Int. J. Wildland Fire

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general society has a preference for active management to address wildfire risk and degrading ecological conditions of fire adapted forests (McCaffrey et al 2012). However, societal factors such as inadequate funding, conflicts among objectives and priority of resource values as well as limited public understanding have created significant delay in the implementation of these programs to restore forest resilience to fire (Franklin et al 2014;Rideout et al 2014). Additionally, the current scale of fuel treatment is far less than required to achieve landscape resilience (North et al 2012).…”

Section: Landscape Hazard and Value Susceptibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last two decades wildfire activity, damage, and management cost within the US have increased substantially. These increases have been associated with a number of factors including climate change and fuel accumulation due to a century of active fire suppression. The increased fire activity has occurred during a time of significant ex-urban development of the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) along with increased demand on water resources originating on forested landscapes. These increased demands have put substantial pressure on federal agencies charged with wildfire management to continue and expand the century old policy of aggressive wildfire suppression. However, aggressive wildfire suppression is one of the major factors that drive the increased extent, intensity, and damage associated with the small number of large wildfires that are unable to be suppressed. In this paper we discuss the positive feedback loops that lead to demands for increasing suppression response while simultaneously increasing wildfire risk in the future. Despite a wealth of scientific research that demonstrates the limitations of the current management paradigm pressure to maintain the existing system are well entrenched and driven by the existing social systems that have evolved under our current management practice. Interestingly, US federal wildland fire policy provides considerable discretion for managers to pursue a range of management objectives; however, societal expectations and existing management incentive structures result in policy implementation that is straining the resilience of fire adapted ecosystems and the communities that reside in and adjacent to them.

show abstract

“…Landscapes are organized by their primary state as shown by abbreviations to the right of panels monotonically increasing effectiveness with progressively higher treated area was especially consistent among single-year studies (Fig. 6) that measured treatment effects as if they happened all at once (Loehle 2004;Ager et al 2007a;Finney 2007;Parisien et al 2007;Schmidt et al 2008;Wei et al 2008;Cary et al 2009;Ager et al 2010b;Moghaddas et al 2010;Osborne 2011;Wei 2012;Rideout et al 2014;Ager et al 2016;Scott et al 2016;Stevens et al 2016;Jones et al 2017;Thompson et al 2017;Fitch et al 2018;Kreitler et al 2020). The monotonically increasing pattern was also discernable for most multi-year simulations (Fig.…”

Section: Treatment Extentmentioning

confidence: 53%

Fuel treatment effectiveness at the landscape scale: a systematic review of simulation studies comparing treatment scenarios in North America

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The risk of destructive wildfire on fire-prone landscapes with excessive fuel buildup has prompted the use of fuel reduction treatments to protect valued resources from wildfire damage. The question of how to maximize the effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments at landscape scales is important because treating an entire landscape may be undesirable or unfeasible. We reviewed 86 simulation studies that examined landscape-scale fuel reduction treatment effectiveness for landscapes of the USA or Canada. Each of these studies tested effects of fuel reduction treatments on wildfire through comparisons of landscape scenarios differing by treatment design or other attributes. Results from these studies were summarized to assess what they reveal about factors determining fuel treatment effectiveness at landscape scales. Results Qualifying studies focused primarily but not exclusively on forested landscapes of the western USA and ranged in size from 200 to 3,400,000 ha. Most studies showed that scenarios with fuel reduction treatments had lower levels of wildfire compared to untreated scenarios. Damaging wildfire types decreased while beneficial wildfire increased as a result of treatments in most cases where these were differentiated. Wildfire outcomes were influenced by five dimensions of treatment design (extent, placement, size, prescription, and timing) and other factors beyond the treatments (weather, climate, fire/fuel attributes, and other management inputs). Studies testing factorial combinations showed that the relative importance of these factors varied across landscapes and contexts. Conclusions Simulation studies have highlighted general principles of effective fuel treatment design at landscape scales, including the desirability of treating extensive areas with appropriate prescriptions at sufficient frequency to reduce wildfire impacts even under extreme conditions that may be more prevalent in the future. More specific, context-dependent strategies have also been provided, such as a variety of placement schemes prioritizing the protection of different resources. Optimization algorithms were shown to be helpful for determining treatment placement and timing to achieve desired objectives under given constraints. Additional work is needed to expand the geographical scope of these studies, further examine the importance and interactions of driving factors, and assess longer-term effects of fuel reduction treatments under projected climate change.

show abstract

Valuing fire planning alternatives in forest restoration: Using derived demand to integrate economics with ecological restoration

Cited by 14 publications

References 20 publications

Where to prescribe burn: the costs and benefits of prescribed burning close to houses

Where to prescribe burn: the costs and benefits of prescribed burning close to houses

Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management

Fuel treatment effectiveness at the landscape scale: a systematic review of simulation studies comparing treatment scenarios in North America

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About