Abstract

To support improved wildfire incident decision-making, in 2017 the US Forest Service (Forest Service) implemented risk-informed tools and processes, together known as Risk Management Assistance (RMA). The Forest Service is developing tools such as RMA to improve wildfire decision-making and implements these tools in complex organizational environments. We assessed the perceived value of RMA and factors that affected its use to inform the literature on decision support for fire management. We sought to answer two questions: (1) What was the perceived value of RMA for line officers who received it?; and (2) What factors affected how RMA was received and used during wildland fire events? We conducted a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with decision-makers to understand the contextualized and interrelated factors that affect wildfire decision-making and the uptake of a decision-support intervention such as RMA. We used a thematic coding process to analyze our data according to our questions. RMA increased line officers’ ability to communicate the rationale underlying their decisions more clearly and transparently to their colleagues and partners. Our interviewees generally said that RMA data analytics were valuable but did not lead to changes in their decisions. Line officer personality, pre-season exposure to RMA, local political dynamics and conditions, and decision biases affected the use of RMA. Our findings reveal the complexities of embracing risk management, not only in the context of US federal fire management, but also in other similar emergency management contexts. Attention will need to be paid to existing decision biases, integration of risk management approaches in the interagency context, and the importance of knowledge brokers to connect across internal organizational groups. Our findings contribute to the literature on managing change in public organizations, specifically in emergency decision-making contexts such as fire management.

Highlights

  • Increased wildfire extent, severity, and complexity require risk-informed decisionmaking to effectively balance safety for firefighters, protection of values at risk, and achievement of social and ecological objectives [1,2]

  • We focus on our line officer interviewees in this paper, we conducted interviews with those who delivered Risk Management Assistance (RMA) and other fire-management personnel on several fires; more information on those data is available in [42]

  • Line officers often valued the discussions during incident response that were facilitated by RMA teams and informed by RMA analytical products

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Severity, and complexity require risk-informed decisionmaking to effectively balance safety for firefighters, protection of values at risk, and achievement of social and ecological objectives [1,2]. The US National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy recognizes the concurrent need to facilitate safe and effective response, support fire-adapted communities, and promote resilient fire-adapted landscapes [3]. Managing for these multiple goals is an enormous challenge rife with ambiguity and competing objectives for different stakeholders that vary for any given fire incident [4]. US Forest Service (Forest Service) fire management and decision-making prioritizes short-term over long-term risks [5,6] Changing this will require updating leadership direction, incentives, and other agency institutions to promote more long-term considerations [4]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call