decision making

Where a legacy of aggressive wildland fire suppression has left forests in need of fuel reduction, allowing wildland fire to burn may provide fuel treatment benefits, thereby reducing suppression costs from subsequent fires. The least-cost-plus-net-value-change model of wildland fire economics includes benefits of wildfire in a framework for evaluating suppression options.

Concerns about forest health and the threat of wildfire across the Western United States increasingly provide the impetus for communities to find land management solutions that serve multiple interests. Funding and procedural changes over the past decade have positioned federal agencies to put greater emphasis on multistakeholder partnerships and public outreach efforts.

Rehabilitation and timber-salvage activities after wildfire require rapid planning and rational decisions. Identifying areas with high risk for erosion and soil productivity losses is important. Moreover, allocation of corrective and mitigative efforts must be rational and prioritized.

In mixed-ownership landscapes, fuels conditions on private lands have implications for fire risk on public lands and vice versa. The success of efforts to mitigate fire risk depends on the extent, efficacy, and coordination of treatments on nearby ownerships. Understanding factors in forest owners’ decisions to address the risk of wildland fire is therefore important.

Wildfire, like many natural hazards, affects large landscapes with many landowners and the risk individual owners face depends on both individual and collective protective actions. In this study, we develop a spatially explicit game theoretic model to examine the strategic interaction between landowners’ hazard mitigation decisions on a landscape with public and private ownership.