Perspectives on Disconnects Between Scientific Information and Management Decisions on Post-fire Recovery in Western US

Abstract

Environmental regulations frequently mandate the use of "best available" science, but ensuring that it is used in decisions around the use and protection of natural resources is often challenging. In the Western US, this relationship between science and management is at the forefront of postfire land management decisions. Recent fires, post-fire threats (e.g. flooding, erosion), and the role of fire in ecosystem health combine to make post-fire management highly visible and often controversial. This paper uses post-fire management to present a framework for understanding why disconnects between science and management decisions may occur. We argue that attributes of agencies, such as their political or financial incentives, can limit how effectively science is incorporated into decision-making. At the other end of the spectrum, lack of synthesis or limited data in science can result in disconnects between science-based analysis of post-fire effects and agency policy and decisions. Disconnects also occur because of the interaction between the attributes of agencies and the attributes of science, such as their different spatial and temporal scales of interest. After offering examples of these disconnects in post-fire treatment, the paper concludes with recommendations to reduce disconnects by improving monitoring, increasing synthesis of scientific findings, and directing social science research toward identifying and deepening understanding of these disconnects.

Evaluating rehabilitation efforts following the Milford Flat Fire: successes, failures, and controlling factors

“…Agencies and land owners tasked with managing post-fire landscapes are faced with a complicated evaluation of the relative risks, costs, and benefits of various scenarios-evaluations that usually need to be made quickly (Burgman 2005, Chen et al 2013. No action could leave burned areas in an undesired ecological condition for years (Newhall et al 2004, Steers and Allen 2010, Knutson et al 2014.…”

The Use of Science in Wildland Fire Management: a Review of Barriers and Facilitators

“…They can be better prepared for such opportunities by continually fostering all the factors on the left side of our conceptual model. & 2002 [40] & 2007 [36,50] & 2008 [39] & 2010 [14] & 2011 [51] & 2012 [62] & 2013 [44,59,79] & 2014 [80,81] & 2015 [32,55,82,83] & 2016 [13,23,34,60] & 2017 [12,63,[84][85][86] [89,90] & 2008 [91] & 2011 [48] & 2012 [92] & 2015 [42,46] & 2017 [43,47] & 2018 [93,94] & 2019 [64] Climate Change & 2010 [95] & 2012 [35] & 2013 [76] & 2014 [58,68,96,97] & 2015 [37,41] & 2016 [65] & 2017…”

“…This may reflect the fact that climate change science often relies on environmental modeling exercises that include downscaling of climate projects, and many studies report that managers are uncertain or skeptical of such methods [57,58]. In the realm of fire science, scientific uncertainty or conflict can arise from a lack of synthesis of the scientific literature [59], lack of science in a particular locality [46], or lack of trust in the outcome of studies that rely heavily on modeling and assumptions [34]. Ten papers identified lack of awareness or understanding of science by managers as a significant factor in determining the use of fire science in decision-making.…”

“…For example, 3 of the 20 papers that discussed boundary objects discussed them as possible barriers [42,43,73] and another 3 discussed boundary objects as both potential barriers and facilitators of fire science use [44,74,75]. Boundary objects can be amorphous and range from workshops [76] to decision-support tools [22,38,59], so their use and outcomes vary depending on the type of boundary object under consideration. For example, with boundary objects like wildfire risk maps [74,75], the utility for management is mixed depending on how managers were engaged in the map development.…”

Social Science/Natural Science Perspectives on Wildfire and Climate Change

“…In particular, the authors find that seeding and other erosion controls and ground‐based salvage logging are inconsistent with the goal of restoring ecosystem functions. Chen et al () review recent literature on post‐fire effects and find that the effectiveness of post‐fire treatments varies by location and treatment type (e.g., reseeding or other erosion controls). These authors also note a lack of studies evaluating the effectiveness of treatments for satisfying multiple objectives (e.g., erosion control, ecological recovery, and reduced fire risk).…”