Resolving future fire management conflicts using multicriteria decision making. Issue 1 (2nd November 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Driscoll, Don A.; Bode, Michael; Bradstock, Ross A.; Keith, David A.; Penman, Trent D.; Price, Owen F.
• Is Part Of: Conservation biology. Volume 30:Issue 1(2016:Feb.)
• Page Start: 196
• Page End: 205
• Publication Date: 2015-11-02
• Subjects: fuel reduction -- prescribed burning -- structured decision making -- wildland–urban interface -- WUI -- interfaz tierra silvestre‐urbana -- quema prescrita -- reducción de combustible -- toma estructurada de decisiones -- WUI; Conservation biology -- Periodicals; 333.9516
• DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12580
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0888-8892

Abstract

Abstract: Management strategies to reduce the risks to human life and property from wildfire commonly involve burning native vegetation. However, planned burning can conflict with other societal objectives such as human health and biodiversity conservation. These conflicts are likely to intensify as fire regimes change under future climates and as growing human populations encroach farther into fire‐prone ecosystems. Decisions about managing fire risks are therefore complex and warrant more sophisticated approaches than are typically used. We applied a multicriteria decision making approach (MCDA) with the potential to improve fire management outcomes to the case of a highly populated, biodiverse, and flammable wildland–urban interface. We considered the effects of 22 planned burning options on 8 objectives: house protection, maximizing water quality, minimizing carbon emissions and impacts on human health, and minimizing declines of 5 distinct species types. The MCDA identified a small number of management options (burning forest adjacent to houses) that performed well for most objectives, but not for one species type (arboreal mammal) or for water quality. Although MCDA made the conflict between objectives explicit, resolution of the problem depended on the weighting assigned to each objective. Additive weighting of criteria traded off the arboreal mammal and water quality objectives for other objectives. Multiplicative weighting identified scenarios that avoided poor outcomes for any objective, which is important for avoiding potentially irreversible biodiversity losses. To distinguish reliably among management options, future work should focus on reducing uncertainty in outcomes across a range of objectives. Considering management actions that have more predictable outcomes than landscape fuel management will be important. We found that, where data were adequate, an MCDA can support decision making in the complex and often conflicted area of fire management.