WILDLAND FIRE USE BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS

Fire Management Today, Winter 2008 by Black, Anne, Williamson, Martha, Doane, Dustin

The Forest Service authorizes broadscale wildland fire use (WFU) both inside and outside wilderness areas in many western forests; but, will agency authorization alone lead to implementation?

Understanding barriers and facilitators to WFU implementation is critical for establishing realistic program expectations and providing a foundation for any efforts to change program outcomes.

This paper synthesizes our current understanding of factors influencing WFU decisionmaking (see Table 1 for a summary of previous research). Our intent is to capture the fire community's dispersed wisdom and provide policymakers and decisionmakers with an objective basis for future actions designed to affect WFU program outcomes and effectiveness.

Methodology

Our background data come from:

* Previous formal studies ( ),

* Two information collection team efforts organized by the Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center,

* A series of targeted interviews, and

* Numerous discussions with members of the fire community.

Through two recent master's thesis projects (Williamson, Doane), we sought to determine which of the myriad factors (Table 1) affecting decisions to plan for or manage WFU are most important to fire staff making recommendations and line officers making decisions about wildland fire.

Factors Affecting WFU Decisions-from the Fire Staff's Perspective

Doane (2005) sought to understand WFU barriers and facilitators on all wilderness lands. He compared factors in areas where WFU was a management option to places where it was not. He focused on Forest Service district fire management officers and assistant fire management officers and their views on the issues surrounding Forest Service ranger districts with wilderness areas. Although Doane's survey response rate falls beneath statistical rigor at 14 percent, it remains the largest such investigation known. We present his results for the wildland fire management community to consider as it moves from WFU in wilderness only to WFU on all lands.

Table 2 summarizes responses to key survey questions. Respondents were asked to answer to what extent they felt particular statements were responsible for an outcome (the decision on the most recent candidate ignition, lack of authorization in a fire management plan, or lack of authorization in the land management plan).

Responses across all categories suggest significant biophysical constraints on WFU (e.g., location of ignition relative to locations where fire is not desirable, lack of natural ignitions). Such constraints are not likely to go away, although it is possible to ameliorate some of them, such as by making the built environment more fire resilient.

Responses also indicate the importance of coordination across ownership and management boundaries and the interconnection of landscapes and the significance of internal support for WFU. This latter is intriguing because while the former have gained management and research attention, this issue has not.

Supporting this finding, institutional support was most frequently mentioned as a facilitator by fire management officers located in areas where WFU is authorized (Table 3). Specific support cited as most useful included:

* Supporting the fire manager's decision,

* Encouraging WFU from higher levels,

* Providing managers with incentives to use WFU,

* Counting WFU acres toward targets, and

* Protecting managers and their decision.

Facilitators most frequently mentioned by fire managers in areas where WFU is currently not authorized include: 1) educating internal and external audiences, including evaluating the adverse effects of suppression decisions and 2) increasing management flexibility, including allowing WFU even under high national preparedness levels, managing fires remotely, and changing Wildland Fire Implementation Plan Stage I timelines.

Line Officer's Perspective

Williamson (2005) addressed barriers and facilitators to WFU by asking how line officers make their go/no-go decision. She obtained a high response rate (85 percent) among a study population of district rangers with existing WFU authority in the Forest Service's Northern Region, Southwest Region, and Intermountain Region.

Williamson's analysis revealed that the primary factor differentiating district rangers likely to use WFU from those who are not is the ranger's perception of the WFU program's value. A high level of trust in the ranger's staff was also important.

On the other hand, top considerations that inhibit the WFU go decision included:

* External factors such as time of year, fire danger indices, ignition location, threatened and endangered species;

* Public perception; and

* Human resource availability and the lack of resources (ground and aerial), WFU qualifications, and agency support.

Williamson's results mirror research from other industries that show productivity is positively correlated to alignment with organizational values and priorities (cf. Vogus 2004) and suggests that any changes in WFU program outcomes will require attention to how organizational values are articulated, prioritized, and transferred to line officers.