Forest Service fire management and the elusiveness of change

Matthew P. Thompson,Sarah M. McCaffrey,Courtney A. Schultz

doi:10.1186/s42408-019-0028-x

Matthew P. Thompson, Sarah M. McCaffrey + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-019-0028-x

Copy DOI

Abstract

BackgroundThere is broad recognition that fire management in the United States must fundamentally change and depart from practices that have led to an over-emphasis on suppression and limited the presence of fire in forested ecosystems. In this paper, we look at competing problem definitions in US Forest Service policy for fire management, the presence of goal ambiguity, and how these factors can explain why changes in fire management have been elusive, despite policy change. We consider US Forest Service fire policies, performance incentives, and decision-making processes for two sides of the agency: the National Forest System, which is responsible for land management on the national forests, and Fire and Aviation Management, which oversees response to wildland fire.Findings and conclusionsWe find that both sides of the agency acknowledge a complex problem definition for fire—one that recognizes fire as a natural ecological process, and also as a threat to personnel, communities, and natural resources. However, we raise the question of whether the agency is adequately addressing competing problem definitions in fire policy, particularly given its largely separated structure between land and fire management. We suggest that, in the face of goal ambiguity, factors such as performance measurement, a preference for minimizing short-term risk, and professional expertise drive decisions that perpetuate the status quo. Opportunities exist to bridge more effectively across land and fire management and reduce incentives to focus on short-term risks during fire events. These include creating a meta-frame for fire management, improving performance measurement, supporting greater integration of fire and land management planning, increasing transparency and collaboration, and arming agency personnel with the core competencies needed to effectively tackle the complex problem of fire management.

Highlights

In the United States, there is broad recognition that current wildfire management practices must fundamentally change (North et al 2015b, Thompson et al 2018a)
We look at how these policies navigate conflicting problem definitions for fire and the extent to which federal fire policy is characterized by goal ambiguity
It is important to overtly recognize different problem definitions, the extent of current goal ambiguity, and the resultant potential conflicts that exist within and between National Forest System (NFS) and Fire and Aviation Management (FAM). This is a necessary step to begin to identify approaches that could improve upon a status quo that continues to prioritize fire suppression, despite multiple policy changes intended to decrease that emphasis

Summary

Introduction

In the United States, there is broad recognition that current wildfire management practices must fundamentally change (North et al 2015b, Thompson et al 2018a). We propose that ambiguity and conflict in defining the wildland fire management problem, along with the current mix of incentives and aspects of agency structure, have inhibited efforts over the past several decades to improve fire management outcomes, despite policy developments. Addressing these dynamics will be critical to improve management going forward. We consider US Forest Service fire policies, performance incentives, and decision-making processes for two sides of the agency: the National Forest System, which is responsible for land management on the national forests, and Fire and Aviation Management, which oversees response to wildland fire

Results

Discussion

Conclusion