People living in fire-prone areas must manage wildland fire in increasingly complex social and ecological landscapes. Policy-makers in the US and Australia have attempted to address this complexity through requiring inter-agency and community collaboration around wildland fire planning. In this research, we investigate collaborative wildland fire planning groups under two policy frameworks: (1) Community Wildfire Protection Planning groups (CWPPs) under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act in the United States, and (2) Bushfire Management Committees (BFMCs) under the Rural Fires Act in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. We asked: What types of data/information do wildfire planning groups use to inform decision-making? What are the characteristics of wildland fire planning processes? What are potential implications of the planning processes on wildland fire management?

We conducted four case studies of CWPP groups in the eastern US and three case studies of BFMC groups in NSW, Australia. We selected groups to maximize social and ecological context and conducted 112 in-depth interviews with participants across planning groups. Also, we conducted a review and inventory of planning documents from each group.  

Results/Conclusions

Each group used a structured risk assessment approach to wildland fire planning. The mode of risk assessment varied greatly, from on-the-ground check-list assessments to spatial GIS models. Data varied from spatially-explicit vegetation layers to collaboratively-determined community values. The US wildfire planning groups tended to use value-based approaches, collaboratively identifying and scoring infrastructure values, economic values, cultural values, and ecological values. Generally, value categories were defined in terms of use-value. After scoring, infrastructure and economic values were rated highest and cultural and ecological values were rated lowest. Australian groups used an asset-based approach to assessing risk and prioritizing action. Assets were defined as human settlement assets, economic assets, environmental assets, and cultural assets. However, many participants noted that environmental asset data was both insufficient and inconsistent. Further, some participants indicated difficulty in adequately capturing environmental assets as a point on a map.           

In the cases we examined, risk assessment approaches to wildfire planning aided organizational prioritization of projects and funding. Also, structured risk assessment was a learning and consensus-building tool within often diverse stakeholder planning groups. However, environmental values were generally under-emphasized due to inadequate data and planning templates that could not capture more complex, landscape-level ecological values.