Wildfire Management and Forecasting Fire Potential: The Roles of Climate Information and Social Networks in the Southwest United States

Abstract

Continuing progress in the fields of meteorology, climatology, and fire ecology has enabled more proactive and risk-tolerant wildland fire management practices in the United States. Recent institutional changes have also facilitated the incorporation of more advanced climate and weather research into wildland fire management. One of the most significant changes was the creation of Predictive Services in 1998, a federal interagency group composed, in part, of meteorologists who create climate-and weather-based fire outlooks tailored to fire manager needs. Despite the numerous forecast products now available to fire managers, few studies have examined how these products have affected their practices. In this paper the authors assess how fire managers in the Southwest region of the United States perceive and incorporate different types of information into their management practices. A social network analysis demonstrates that meteorologists have become central figures in disseminating information in the regional interagency fire management network. Interviews and survey data indicate that person-to-person communication during planning phases prior to the primary fire season is key to Predictive Services' success in supporting fire managers' decision making. Over several months leading up to the fire season, predictive forecasts based on complex climate, fuels, and fire-risk models are explained to fire managers and updated through frequent communication. The study's findings suggest that a significant benefit of the information sharing process is the dialogue it fosters among fire managers, locally, regionally, and nationally, which better prepares them to cooperate and strategically plan for the fire season.

Climate Contributors to Forest Mosaics: Ecological Persistence Following Wildfire

“…There are, however, numerous feedbacks through which climate change has already and will likely continue to affect fire activity and severity, occurring across the coupled human-natural system spectrum ( Figure 6). These include changes in forest management and thinning practices specifically designed to increase carbon stocks and reduce the risk of catastrophic fire (Stephens et al 2013, Prichard andKennedy 2014), changes to prescribed burning practices based on increased variability during shoulder seasons (Kolden and Brown 2010), changes to fire suppression and management tactics such as increased burnout operations that reduce remnant unburned islands or increasing use of climate information to make management decisions (Owen et al 2012), and changes in the way human populations act in fire-prone environments (Ray et al 2012) such as through regulation of further development in the wildland-urban interface . Prescribed fires and fire suppression decisions, in particular, have an impact on this type of analysis because decisions about when to ignite prescribed fires and when and how to fully suppress wildfires often account for climatic conditions, leading Figure 6.…”

Potential applications of subseasonal‐to‐seasonal (S2S) predictions

“…For example, S2S forecasts could be used to augment the existing use of seasonal environmental management forecasts, such as providing additional decision support information for marine fisheries and aquaculture (e.g. Spillman and Hobday, 2014) and wildfire risk management (Owen et al, 2012). Similarly, S2S forecast applications that target the retail sector could be used for advanced stock orders where the timing of seasonal changes is important, or support preparedness ahead of extreme weather events such as heat waves (e.g.…”

The role of remote engagement in supporting boundary chain networks across Alaska

“…Social networks facilitate the exchange of climate information and the specific needs, priorities, and concerns between scientists and decision makers (Cash and Buizer, 2005;Owen et al, 2012;Dow et al, 2013); aid in distributing risk, identification of common priorities and goals, negotiation of conflict, and consensus building (Juhola and Westeroff, 2011); support collaborative partnerships by reducing costs through the pooling of resources and sharing lessons learned (Armitage et al, 2011); and increase the credibility, legitimacy, and saliency of shared efforts (Cash et al, 2003). Within boundary organizations, more frequent interaction among policy makers and researchers is related to a greater likelihood of information use (Crona and Parker, 2011).…”