As wildfires in the western US grow in both size and intensity, forest policymakers and managers seek effective ways to mitigate and adapt to increasing wildfire risk.
Modifying activities and restricting access through regulation are valuable mechanisms for reducing human-caused wildfire ignitions. Fire stage restriction policies implemented during periods of high fire risk entail three tiers of increasingly restrictive rules intended to prevent ignitions, culminating in forest closures.
Efforts to understand, assess, and address diversifying recovery needs have growing relevance as wildfires continue to impact communities. However, little is known about social experiences navigating gaps in assistance funding and support or “unmet needs” in post-fire spaces, particularly for indirect impacts like smoke damage.
Restoring fire in fire-adapted ecosystems is necessary to curtail woody plant expansion, enhance biodiversity, and reduce wildfire risks, yet prescribed fire is promoted less by federal agencies than other grassland conservation practices. The U.S.
Communities can face significant risk from wildfire, often compounded by climate change and legacies of industrial forest management.
Flood events in post-fire environments produce cascading social and ecological consequences that are challenging to anticipate, mitigate, and manage. Engaging private property owners in mitigation is complex, and the drivers that motivate action or inaction are not yet well defined.
Food and fibre commodity production is fundamental to global food security and economic development. However, these commodities are vulnerable to different natural hazards.
Background: Wildfire policy has evolved rapidly over the past three decades, necessitating repeated shifts in management and communication strategies for US land management agencies. One growing focus considers the use of “other than full suppression” (OTFS) strategies, where managers use natural ignitions to achieve management objectives when conditions allow.