Abstract
Increased prescribed burning is needed to provide a diversity of public benefits, including wildfire hazard reduction, improved forest resilience, and biodiversity conservation. Though rare, escaped burns or significant smoke impacts may result in harm to individuals and property. Liability for potential damages reduces the willingness of fire managers to expand the practice, particularly where the wildland–urban interface creates the greatest risk. Across the United States of America, efforts have been made to reduce prescribed fire-related risks through statutory reform, training and certification requirements, and private insurance. An increasing number of states have adopted the liability standard of gross negligence to protect prescribed fire practitioners. When liability relief is tied to best practices or burn manager certification, risk to the public from potential prescribed fire impacts is reduced. Under this model, however, those harmed by prescribed fire may have little legal recourse for compensation from losses. Here, we explore the pairing of a mechanism to compensate losses while limiting liability for practitioners who use best management practices. Specifically, we assess the suitability of using a catastrophe fund in conjunction with adoption of gross negligence standards, modeled after other natural hazards examples. This model could ensure public support and sustain and expand prescribed fire in many fire-prone landscapes.
Highlights
Increasing the pace and scale of prescribed fire is recognized as a critical need for mitigating increasing wildfire risks [1,2]
The majority of prescribed fires in the United States of America (U.S.) are ignited in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Kansas; the Southeastern states account for ca. 70% of area burned with prescribed fire in the U.S annually [4]
The expansion of the wildland–urban interface has increased the complexity of wildfire suppression [8], but it has increased the difficulty of prescribed fire management [7] and raised the potential of impacts to the public through smoke intrusion or escaped prescribed fire
Summary
Increasing the pace and scale of prescribed fire is recognized as a critical need for mitigating increasing wildfire risks [1,2]. The gross negligence standard provides significant relief for prescribed fire managers in recognition of the public good that results from sustaining prescribed fire at scales needed to reduce wildfire risks and preserve wildlife habitat and biodiversity [22]. With a few notable exceptions [19], damages from prescribed fire escapes or smoke tend to result in losses at local scales [13] This means that, unlike large wildfires where a disaster declaration may provide some forms of aid, the options for immediate redress of loss for affected parties from prescribed fires is unlikely in the absence of insurance claims or civil lawsuits or both. In states where the standard of gross negligence protects prescribed burners, any resulting losses to homeowners and timberland under this model may be borne wholly by the individuals impacted. In addition to protecting practitioners, these funds may ensure broader public support for burning
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
