Environmental Management

, Volume 52, Issue 6, pp 1415–1426 | Cite as

Perspectives on Disconnects Between Scientific Information and Management Decisions on Post-fire Recovery in Western US

  • Xiaoli Chen
  • Nathan Emery
  • Elizabeth S. Garcia
  • Erin J. Hanan
  • Heather E. Hodges
  • Tyronne Martin
  • Matthew A. Meyers
  • Lindsey E. Peavey
  • Hui Peng
  • Jaime Sainz Santamaria
  • Kellie A. Uyeda
  • Sarah E. Anderson
  • Christina Tague


Environmental regulations frequently mandate the use of “best available” science, but ensuring that it is used in decisions around the use and protection of natural resources is often challenging. In the Western US, this relationship between science and management is at the forefront of post-fire land management decisions. Recent fires, post-fire threats (e.g. flooding, erosion), and the role of fire in ecosystem health combine to make post-fire management highly visible and often controversial. This paper uses post-fire management to present a framework for understanding why disconnects between science and management decisions may occur. We argue that attributes of agencies, such as their political or financial incentives, can limit how effectively science is incorporated into decision-making. At the other end of the spectrum, the lack of synthesis or limited data in science can result in disconnects between science-based analysis of post-fire effects and agency policy and decisions. Disconnects also occur because of the interaction between the attributes of agencies and the attributes of science, such as their different spatial and temporal scales of interest. After offering examples of these disconnects in post-fire treatment, the paper concludes with recommendations to reduce disconnects by improving monitoring, increasing synthesis of scientific findings, and directing social-science research toward identifying and deepening understanding of these disconnects.


Risk Policy-relevant science Uncertainty Best available science 



We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara. This paper is the product of an interdisciplinary PhD seminar on the science and management of fire. The first 11 authors were participants. Anderson and Tague were the faculty leads.


  1. Anderson SE, Anderson TL (2012) The political economy of wildfire management: saving forests, saving houses, or burning money. In: Bradshaw KM, Lueck D (eds) Wildfire policy: law and economics perspectives. RFF Press, New York, pp 109–126Google Scholar
  2. Anderson SE, Hodges HE, Anderson TL (2013) Technical management in an age of openness: the political, public, and environmental forest ranger. J Policy Anal Manag 32(3):554–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balla SJ, Lawrence ED, Maltzman F, Sigelman L (2002) Partisanship, blame avoidance, and the distribution of legislative pork. Am J Political Sci 46:515–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbour J (2007) Accelerating adoption of fire science and related research. Final Report to the Joint Fire Science Program JFSP Project 1-23Google Scholar
  5. Baru C, Fegraus EH, Andelman SJ et al (2012) Cyberinfrastructure for observatory and monitoring networks: a case study from the TEAM network. BioScience 62:667–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beschta R, Rhodes J, Kauffman J et al (2004) Postfire management on forested public lands of the western United States. Conserv Biol 18:957–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Besley T, Case A (1995) Does electoral accountability affect economic policy choices? Evidence from gubernatorial term limits. Q J Econ 110:769–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bettinger P (2010) An overview of methods for incorporating wildfires into forest planning models. Math Comput Nat Res Sci 2:43Google Scholar
  9. Beyers J (2004) Postfire seeding for erosion control: effectiveness and impacts on native plant communities. Conserv Biol 18:947–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bickers KN, Stein RM (2000) The congressional pork barrel in a Republican era. J Politics 62:1070–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bryan SM (2012) Feds spend millions on immediate post-fire effects. Associated Press, Albuquerque. Accessed 29 April 2013
  12. Busenberg G (2004) Wildfire management in the United States: the evolution of a policy failure. Rev Policy Res 21:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butler KF, Koontz TM (2005) Theory into practice: implementing ecosystem management objectives in the USDA Forest Service. Environ Manag 35:138–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calkin DC, Finney MA, Ager AA, Thompson MP, Gebert KM (2011) Progress towards and barriers to implementation of a risk framework for US federal wildland fire policy and decision making. Forest Policy Econ 13:378–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Canton-Thompson J, Gebert KM, Thompson B, Jones G, Calkin D, Donovan D (2008) External human factors in incident management team decision making and their effect on large fire suppression expenditures. J Forest 106:416–424Google Scholar
  16. Carroll MS, Blatner KA, Cohn PJ et al (2004) Managing fire risk in the forests of the U.S. Inland Northwest: a classic “wicked problem” in public land policy. In: Second international symposium on fire economics, planning, and policy: a global view, pp 253–264Google Scholar
  17. Carsey TM, Rundquist B (2009) Party and committee in distributive politics: evidence from defense spending. J Politics 61:1156–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cerdà A, Robichaud P (2009) Fire effects on soils and restoration strategies. Science Publishers, EnfieldCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cheng AS, Steelman T, Moseley C (2007) Examining changes in wildfire policy and governance in the United States through three analytical lenses. In: Second conference on the human dimensions of wildland fire, pp 24–32Google Scholar
  20. Choo CW, Bontis N (2002) The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Cole S, Healy A, Werker E (2012) Do voters demand responsive governments? Evidence from Indian disaster relief. J Dev Econ 97:167–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Covert A (2010) The effects of straw mulching on post-wildfire vegetation recovery in South Eastern British Columbia, BC. J Ecosyst Manag 11:1–12Google Scholar
  23. CRS (2012) Federal funding for wildfire control and management. CRS Report for Congress 7-5700Google Scholar
  24. Cundill G, Fabricius C (2009) Monitoring in adaptive co-management: toward a learning based approach. J Environ Manag 90:3205–3211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J et al (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Davidson R, Davidson C, Espinosa AR (2009) Linear anionic polyacrylamide as an effective post-fire soil treatment: understanding the chemistry and physical science. J Soil Water Conserv 64:243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. DiTomaso JM, Marcum DB, Rasmussen MS et al (1997) Post-fire herbicide sprays enhance native plant diversity. Calif Agric 51:6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dodson EK, Peterson DW (2010) Mulching effects on vegetation recovery following high severity wildfire in north-central Washington State, USA. Forest Ecol Manag 260:1816–1823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dombeck MP, Williams JE, Wood CA (2004) Wildfire policy and public lands: integrating scientific understanding with social concerns across landscapes. Conserv Biol 18:883–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Donato D, Fontaine J, Campbell J (2006) Post-wildfire logging hinders regeneration and increases fire risk. Science 311:352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Donovan G, Brown T (2005) An alternative incentive structure for wildfire management on national forest land. Forest Sci 51:387–395Google Scholar
  32. Driscoll CT, Lambert KF, Chapin S III et al (2012) Science and society: the role of long-term studies in environmental stewardship. BioScience 62:354–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ellison B (1995) A conceptual framework for analyzing bureaucratic politics and autonomy. Am Rev Public Adm 25:161–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Falk DA, Miller C, McKenzie D, Black AE (2007) Cross-scale analysis of fire regimes. Ecosystems 10:809–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fears D (2012) Federal budget to fight wildfires is depleted. The Washington Post. Accessed 22 Aug 2013)
  36. Foltz R, Robichaud PR, Rhee H (2009) A synthesis of postfire road treatments for BAER teams: methods, treatment effectiveness, and decision making tools for rehabilitation. General technical report RMRS-GTR-228Google Scholar
  37. Foster DR, Orwig DA (2006) Preemptive and salvage harvesting of New England forests: when doing nothing is a viable alternative. Conserv Biol 20:959–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. GAO (2003) Better information needed on effectiveness of emergency stabilization and rehabilitation treatments. United States General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, pp 1–55Google Scholar
  39. GAO (2006) Forest Service and BLM could benefit from improved information on status of needed work. United States General Accounting Office, Washington DC, pp 1–48Google Scholar
  40. Germain RH, Floyd DW, Stehman SV (2001) Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public participation process. Forest Policy Econ 3:113–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Glicksman RL (2008) Bridging data gaps through modeling and evaluation of surrogates: use of the best available science to protect biological diversity under the National Forest Management Act. Indiana Law J 83:65Google Scholar
  42. Gómez-Rey MX, Couto-Vázquez A, García-Marco S, González-Prieto SJ (2013) Impact of fire and post-fire management techniques on soil chemical properties. Geoderma 195:155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hann WJ, Bunnell DL (2001) Fire and land management planning and implementation across multiple scales. Int J Wildland Fire 10:389–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hannan MT, Freeman J (1984) Structural inertia and organizational change. Am Sociol Rev 49:149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Healy A, Malhotra N (2009) Myopic voters and natural disaster policy. Am Political Sci Rev 103:387–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hoberg G (2003) Science, politics, and US forest law: the battle over the Forest Service planning rule. Nat Res J 44:1–27Google Scholar
  47. Hubbert KR (2006) Treatment effectiveness monitoring for Southern California wildfires: the 2nd year and 3rd years, 2004 to 2005 and 2005 to 2006 Accessed 14 May 2012
  48. Hudson M (2011) Fire management in the American West: forest politics and the rise of megafires. University Press of Colorado, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  49. Hutto RL (2006) Toward meaningful snag-management guidelines for postfire salvage logging in North American conifer forests. Conserv Biol 20:984–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hyde K, Dickinson MB, Bohrer G et al (2013) Research and development supporting risk-based wildfire effects prediction for fuels and fire management: status and needs. Int J Wildland Fire 22:37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Joint Fire Science Program (2000) Implementation plan for the Joint Fire Science Plan. Accessed 27 July 2012
  52. Jones BD (2001) Politics and the architecture of choice: bounded rationality and governance. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  53. Jones BD, Baumgartner FR (2005) The politics of attention: how government prioritizes problems. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  54. Karr JR, Rhodes JJ, Minshall GW et al (2004) The effects of postfire salvage logging on aquatic ecosystems in the American West. BioScience 54:1029–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Keiter RB (2006) The law of fire: reshaping public land policy in an era of ecology and litigation. Environ Law 36:301–384Google Scholar
  56. Kessler W, Salwasser H, Cartwright CW Jr, Caplan JA (1992) New perspectives for sustainable natural resources management. Ecol Appl 2:221–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Koontz TM, Bodine J (2008) Implementing ecosystem management in public agencies: lessons from the US Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. Conserv Biol 22:60–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kunioka T, Rothenberg LS (1993) The politics of bureaucratic competition: the case of natural resource policy. J Policy Anal Manag 12:700–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lentile LB, Holden ZA, Smith AMS et al (2006) Remote sensing techniques to assess active fire characteristics and post-fire effects. Int J Wildland Fire 15:319–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lindenmayer D, Burton PJ, Franklin JF (2008) Salvage logging and its ecological consequences. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  61. Martin WE, Bender HW, Shields DJ (2000) Stakeholder objectives for public lands: rankings of forest management alternatives. J Environ Manag 58:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McCaffrey S, Toman E, Stidham M, Shindler B (2012) Social science research related to wildfire management: an overview of recent findings and future research needs. Int J Wildland Fire 22(1):15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McCullough SA, Endress BA (2012) Do postfire mulching treatments affect plant community recovery in California coastal sage scrub lands? Environ Manag 49:142–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. McIver J, Starr L (2001) A literature review on the environmental effects of postfire logging. West J Appl For 16:159–168Google Scholar
  65. Michener WK, Porter J, Servilla M, Vanderbilt K (2011) Long term ecological research and information management. Ecol Informatics 6:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Miller ME, Bowker MA, Reynolds RL, Goldstein HL (2012) Post-fire land treatments and wind erosion—lessons from the Milford Flat Fire, UT, USA. Aeolian Res 7:29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Napper C (2006) Burned area emergency response treatments catalog. USDA Forest Service, National Technology and Development, Watershed, Soil, Air Management 0625 1801-SDTDCGoogle Scholar
  68. National Park Service (2007) Finding of no significant impact: post-fire aerial application of herbicide. Accessed 23 May 2013
  69. NICC (2013) National Interagency Fire Center. Accessed 8 Aug 2013
  70. Nordhaus W (1975) The political business cycle. Rev Econ Stud 42:169–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Noss R, Franklin J, Baker W (2006) Managing fire-prone forests in the western United States. Front Ecol 4:418–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Olsen CS, Shindler B (2010) Trust, acceptance, and citizen–agency interactions after large fires: influences on planning processes. Int J Wildland Fire 19:137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Peppin D, Fulé PZ, Sieg CH et al (2010) Post-wildfire seeding in forests of the western United States: an evidence-based review. Forest Ecol Manag 260:573–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Peppin D, Fulé P, Sieg C et al (2011) Recent trends in post-wildfire seeding in western US forests: costs and seed mixes. Int J Wildland Fire 20:702–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Peterson DL, Agee JK, Aplet GH et al (2009) Effects of timber harvest following wildfire in western North America. General technical report PNW-GTR-776. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  76. Pierce J, Meyer G, Jull AJT (2004) Fire-induced erosion and millennial-scale climate change in northern ponderosa pine forests. Nature 432:87–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Policansky D (1999) Natural science, social science, and policy in resource management. Res Soc Probl Public Policy 7:311–322Google Scholar
  78. Potoski M, Talbert J (2000) The dimensional structure of policy outputs: distributive policy and roll call voting. Political Res Q 53:695–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Powers EM, Marshall JD, Zhang J, Wei L (2013) Post-fire management regimes affect carbon sequestration and storage in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecol Manag 291:268–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Preusch M (2004) Amid a forest’s ashes, a debate over logging profits is burning. New York Times. Accessed 29 April 2013
  81. Redding T, Leach J (2012) A synthesis of the effects of natural disturbance and post-disturbance management on streamflow, stream temperature, suspended sediment, and aquatic invertebrate populations. FORREX series 28. FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources, KamloopsGoogle Scholar
  82. Reiners D (2012) Institutional effects on decision making on public lands: an interagency examination of wildfire management. Public Adm Rev 72:177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Robichaud PR (2005) Measurement of post-fire hillslope erosion to evaluate and model rehabilitation treatment effectiveness and recovery. Int J Wildland Fire 14:475–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Robichaud PR, Asmun LE (2012) Tools to aid post-wildfire assessment and erosion-mitigation treatment decisions. Int J Wildland Fire 22(1):95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Robichaud PR, Beyers JL, Neary DG (2000) Evaluating the effectiveness of postfire rehabilitation treatments. General technical report RMRS-GTR-63. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  86. Robichaud PR, Lewis SA, Brown RE, Ashmun LE (2009) Emergency post-fire rehabilitation treatment effects on burned area ecology and long-term restoration. Fire Ecol 5:115–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Robichaud PR, Ashmun LE, Sims BD (2010) Post-fire treatment effectiveness for hillslope stabilization. General technical report RMRS-GTR-240. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  88. Robichaud PR, Lewis SA, Wagenbrenner JW et al (2013) Post-fire mulching for runoff and erosion mitigation. Catena 105:75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Ryder D, Tomlinson M, Gawne B, Likens G (2010) Defining and using “best available science”: a policy conundrum for the management of aquatic ecosystems. Mar Freshw Res 61:821–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sabatier PA, Loomis J, McCarthy C (1995) Hierarchical controls, professional norms, local constituencies, and budget maximization: an analysis of U.S. Forest Service planning decisions. Am J Political Sci 39:204–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Policy 7:385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Saylor A (2007) The quick and the dead: Earth Island v. Forest Service and the risk of Forest Service financial bias in post-fire logging adjudications. Environ Law 37:1–54Google Scholar
  93. Schoennagel T, Veblen TT, Romme WH (2004) The interaction of fire, fuels, and climate across Rocky Mountain forests. BioScience 54:661–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Snider L (2011) Fourmile Fire recovery effort mired in property tangle. Accessed 27 July 2012
  95. Steers RJ, Allen EB (2010) Post-fire control of invasive plants promotes native recovery in a burned desert shrubland. Restor Ecol 18:334–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Stein SM, Gelburd D (1998) Healthy ecosystems and sustainable economies: the federal interagency ecosystem management initiative. Landsc Urban Plan 40:73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Sullivan PJ, Acheson J, Angermeier PL et al (2006) Defining and implementing best available science for fisheries and environmental science, policy, and management. Fisheries 31:460–465Google Scholar
  98. Thompson MP, Calkin DE (2011) Uncertainty and risk in wildland fire management: a review. J Environ Manag 92:1895–1909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Tidwell T, Brown H (2010) A fire protection triangle for the wildland–urban interface. Fire Manag Today 70:6–9Google Scholar
  100. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (2011) Fiscal year 2012 budget overview. Accessed 23 May 2013
  101. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (2012) Fiscal year 2013 budget overview. Accessed 23 May 2013
  102. USDA Forest Service (2011) Burned area emergency response tools. Moscow Forestry Sciences Laboratory. Accessed 27 July 2012
  103. Veblen T (2003) An introduction to key issues in fire regime research for fuels management and ecological restoration. In: Omi P, Joyce L (eds) Fire, fuel treatments and ecological restoration: conference proceedings, 16–18 April 2002. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, pp 259–276Google Scholar
  104. Wagenbrenner JW, MacDonald LH, Rough D (2006) Effectiveness of three post fire rehabilitation treatments in the Colorado Front Range. Hydrol Process 20:2989–3006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW (2006) Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Whitlock C, Shafer SL, Marlon J (2003) The role of climate and vegetation change in shaping past and future fire regimes in the northwestern US and the implications for ecosystem management. Forest Ecol Manag 178:5–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wohlgemuth P, Robichaud P (2006) Evaluating the effectiveness of mulching as a post-fire erosion control treatment. In: Third international fire ecology and management congress. San Diego Fire Recovery Network, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  108. Wright V (2010) Influences to the success of fire science delivery: perspectives of potential fire/fuels science users. Final report to the Joint Fire Science Program, JFSP Project #04-4-2-01 1–61Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaoli Chen
    • 1
  • Nathan Emery
    • 2
  • Elizabeth S. Garcia
    • 3
  • Erin J. Hanan
    • 2
  • Heather E. Hodges
    • 4
  • Tyronne Martin
    • 1
  • Matthew A. Meyers
    • 1
  • Lindsey E. Peavey
    • 1
  • Hui Peng
    • 1
    • 5
  • Jaime Sainz Santamaria
    • 1
  • Kellie A. Uyeda
    • 3
    • 6
  • Sarah E. Anderson
    • 1
  • Christina Tague
    • 1
  1. 1.Bren School of Environmental Science & ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.Ecology, Evolution and Marine BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  3. 3.Department of GeographyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  4. 4.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  5. 5.State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of River Basin Water Cycle (SKL-WAC) & Department of Water ResourcesChina Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research (IWHR)BeijingChina
  6. 6.Department of GeographySan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations