Wildland fire risk research in Canada

Despite increasing concern about wildland fire risk in Canada, there is little synthesis of knowledge that could contribute to the development of a comprehensive risk framework for a wide range of values, which is an essential need for the country. With dramatic variability in costs and losses from this natural hazard, there must be more support for complex decision-making under the uncertainty of how to assess and manage risk to coexist with wildland fire. A long history of Canadian wildland fire research offers solid foundational knowledge related to risk, but the key knowledge gaps must be addressed to fully consider risk in a comprehensive manner. We provide a review of the current context in which risk is variably defined, and recommend use of the general paradigm where risk is the product of both the likelihood and the potential impacts of wildland fire. We then synthesize research related to wildland fire risk from the Canadian scientific literature. With this review, we aim to provide a better understanding of research challenges, limitations, and opportunities for future work on fire risk within the country.

Social acceptability of fuel management in the Australian Capital Territory and surrounding region

Managing fuel to reduce wildland fire risk often creates substantial public debate. Although the acceptability of various fuel management strategies has been explored in some regions, particularly North America, the social acceptability of fuel management is less well understood in other countries. This paper begins to address this knowledge gap by exploring acceptability by residents living in and near the Australian Capital Territory, Australia of three fuel management strategies (prescribed burning, livestock grazing and mechanical thinning) used to reduce wildland fire risk to life and property. All three were considered acceptable by most survey respondents. Acceptability did not vary substantially between strategies or by the location in which the strategy was undertaken. Acceptability of fuel management was associated with trust in fire management agencies, having knowledge of fuel management, feeling vulnerable to wildland fire and respondent characteristics such as previous effects of wildland fires, location of residence, gender, age, income and employment status.

Integrating Fire Behavior Models and Geospatial Analysis for Wildland Fire Risk Assessment and Fuel Management Planning

Wildland fire risk assessment and fuel management planning on federal lands in the US are complex problems that require state-of-the-art fire behavior modeling and intensive geospatial analyses. Fuel management is a particularly complicated process where the benefits and potential impacts of fuel treatments must be demonstrated in the context of land management goals and public expectations. A number of fire behavior metrics, including fire spread, intensity, likelihood, and ecological risk must be analyzed for multiple treatment alternatives. The effect of treatments on wildfire impacts must be considered at multiple scales. The process is complicated by the lack of data integration among fire behavior models, and weak linkages to geographic information systems, corporate data, and desktop office software. This paper describes our efforts to build a streamlined fuel management planning and risk assessment framework, and an integrated system of tools for designing and testing fuel treatment programs on fire-prone wildlands.

Community wildfire protection planning: is the Healthy Forests Restoration Act's vagueness genius?

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) encourages communities to develop community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs) to reduce their wildland fire risk and promote healthier forested ecosystems. Communities who have developed CWPPs have done so using many different processes, resulting in plans with varied form and content. We analysed data from 13 case-study communities to illustrate how the characteristics of HFRA have encouraged communities to develop CWPPs that reflect their local social and ecological contexts. A framework for analysing policy implementation suggests that some elements of HFRA could have made CWPP development and implementation problematic, but these potential shortcomings in the statute have provided communities the freedom to develop CWPPs that are relevant to their conditions and allowed for the development of capacities that communities are using to move forward in several areas.