future challenges
Berry, L. E., Driscoll, D. A., Banks, S. C and Lindenmayer, D.B. Spatially managing fire in forests for biodiversity: concepts, current practices and future challenges, In preparation for publication in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.
175
6.1 Abstract
Within the fire ecology literature, it is becoming increasingly recognized that the spatial patterns generated by wildfires have a significant influence on the conservation of biodiversity. This is particularly relevant to the fire-prone tall forest systems of south- eastern Australia and the Pacific Northwest of the United States of America.
Many spatially-focused ecological studies conclude with suggested fire management recommendations to maintain or improve the ecological value of fire-affected
landscapes. However, these research findings are rarely integrated into decision-making processes within fire management organizations or translated into applied outcomes.
We employed a qualitative research approach to identify the barriers to and enablers of spatially managing fire for biodiversity. We then developed a conceptual framework to achieve the integration of spatial approaches to fire into management. We conducted structured interviews with experts in fire and biodiversity management and research working in fire-prone forest ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest United States and south-eastern Australia. The trans-pacific nature of our study enabled us to access a broad range of views on the spatial management of fire for biodiversity. We aimed to 1) establish whether a spatial approach to fire was currently being employed in
biodiversity management, to establish the barriers to spatially managing fire for
biodiversity and 2) develop a conceptual approach to incorporating spatial fire concepts into current management and research frameworks.
We identified that spatial approaches to fire management must co-exist within a complex system of social and ecological feedbacks between landscapes, academic
176
research, socio-political land management systems and environmental pressures. Our findings suggest that spatially managing fire can be achieved through a number of refinements to existing processes. These steps relate to developing community
understanding of fire science, improving the relevance of fire research outputs to land management, amending existing government policies and approaches, and refining management tools, structures, scales and monitoring to meet biodiversity and fire risk objectives
177
6.2 Introduction
Large-scale forest fires occur globally and commonly create heterogeneous patterns of fire. The repeat occurrence of fire over time produces complex landscape fire mosaics (Bradstock et al. 2005). These mosaics consist of a range of differing fire regimes with
areas varying in fire frequency, intensity, seasonality and type (Gill 1975). Within fire- prone systems, many components of biodiversity are intrinsically adapted to particular fire regimes. The maintenance of tolerable disturbance regimes is a fundamental goal for biodiversity conservation in systems subject to extensive large-scale disturbance events. However, environmental pressures such as land clearing, invasive species and climate change will likely alter the global distribution and frequency of fire and promote novel fire conditions (Brook et al. 2008).
In crown-fire forest systems, fires occurring in increasingly extreme weather conditions are predicted to produce more homogeneous patterns of high severity fire (Berry et al.
2015). Forest fires which occur under extreme conditions often burn large areas, for example the 2009 Black Saturday fires in Victoria, Australia burnt over 450,000 ha (Cruz et al. 2012), whilst the 2013 Rim fire in California, United States burnt 104,200
ha (Harris and Taylor 2015). Additionally, centuries of successful fire suppression activities in North America have altered fire regime distribution in many systems (Noss
et al. 2006). This is particularly evident in drier forest types such as mixed conifer
forests, which are adapted to small-scale, short interval (11- 16 years ), mixed and low- severity fire, but are now experiencing large high-severity fire with return intervals greater than 200 years (Taylor and Skinner 2003). Given these challenges to global forest fire management, alternative perspectives which incorporate key spatial concepts
178
are required to reduce the detrimental impacts of altered fire regimes on biodiversity, ecosystems and communities.
The importance of the spatial patterns of fire in landscapes
Fire is an inherently spatial phenomenon. In montane forest systems, the interaction between topography, weather and fuels leads to the occurrence of mixed severity fire regimes across landscapes (Perry et al. 2011). Following fire, topographically mediated
heterogeneous patterns of fire severity will have a major influence on the ecology of recently burnt forests (Leonard et al. 2014; Berry et al. 2015). Diverse patterns of fire
may lead to increased niche opportunities for species, thereby increasing biodiversity in disturbed landscapes (Bradstock et al. 2005). However, the spatial arrangement of post-
fire landscape components, such as biological legacies and areas of contrasting fire severity will have a major influence on the ability of biota to survive and persist following large-scale fires (Robinson et al. 2013).
Over the last decade, knowledge of the influence of spatial fire patterns has been building (Bradstock et al. 2005). This body of knowledge relates to multiple areas
including fuels, biodiversity, ecosystem resilience, fire management, landscape dynamics and earth system processes. This increasing body of work suggests that by implementing a spatial approach to fire in addition to current temporal management practices, multiple desirable outcomes for biodiversity and risk reduction can be achieved. Through allowing fire regimes to occur along natural gradients and
controlling the size, shape and landscape context of applied burning, land managers can maximize the ecological and social benefits of wildland fire. Tailoring the spatial configurations of burns to the resident biota of forested landscapes will reduce the detrimental impacts of fire, such as habitat loss and fragmentation effects on species and
179
will maximize the beneficial aspects of fire, such as resource heterogeneity and habitat connectivity (Parr and Andersen 2006; Clarke 2008). Furthermore, by strategically managing the spatial distribution of temporal fire treatments, managers may create heterogeneous landscape fire mosaics which may satisfy risk-based objectives by reducing the severity and extent of unplanned wildfires (Bradstock et al. 2005).
Managing landscapes for beneficial spatial patterns of fire
The management of fire-prone forests is one of the most contentious natural resource issues world-wide, including in the United States and Australia (Lindenmayer 1995;
Noss et al. 2006). Forested ecosystems are a fundamental component of key earth
system processes such as carbon, water, nutrient, and air cycling and represent a substantial proportion of global biodiversity (Bonan 2008). Forests are also a key natural resource, with high social and economic values. Fire is a key component of forest ecology globally, and is a major contributing factor to the distribution of forest types (Bond et al. 2005). Globally, land management agencies are increasingly
recognizing the importance of managing fire to restore or conserve ecological values (Ryan et al. 2013). However, the management of fire-prone forest systems must occur
within socio-economic and political constraints (Yoder et al. 2004). Additionally,
managers must deal with the challenges of deploying fire prescriptions within highly modified and dynamic contemporary landscapes (Fernandes et al. 2013). Whilst there is
a firm base understanding of fire ecology, there are still key knowledge gaps,
particularly relating to applied fire management, faunal responses and the spatial aspects of fire (Driscoll et al. 2010b). Ecological fire management approaches are more
commonly developed around temporal concepts such as minimum fire return intervals and in some cases, on creating temporally diverse landscape mosaics (Clarke 2008).
180
Our study aimed to identify the barriers to spatially managing fire within contemporary land management and academic research settings. We used a qualitative interview- based approach (Patton 2002) to ask whether it is possible to successfully manage the spatial patterns of fire for biodiversity outcomes in fire-prone forest landscapes of south-eastern Australia and the Pacific Northwest USA within current research and land management frameworks and socio-political contexts. We used our findings to develop a theoretical framework which highlights the key areas which influence our ability to spatially manage fire. Using this framework, we identified the steps needed to
implement spatially-based fire management approaches. The trans-pacific nature of our study enabled comparisons to be made surrounding key issues in the spatial
management of wildfires for biodiversity. Both countries have a strong history of active fire suppression, widespread and large-scale logging industries, increasing inhabitation of wildland areas and declining land management budgets (Agee 1993; Russell-Smith et
al. 2003). Additionally, both regions have recently experienced destructive large-scale
fires which have resulted in reactionary policy changes and approaches to wildfire management (Cruz et al. 2012; Harris and Taylor 2015).
181
6.3 Methods
Social science methods can provide insights into the social, policy and management settings within which research outcomes are interpreted and applied (Bosomworth et al.
2015). We conducted open-ended structured interviews with sixteen fire management practitioners and sixteen fire ecology researchers working in fire and biodiversity management fields in the Pacific Northwest United States and south-eastern Australia according to the methods outlined in Patton (2002). To gain the broadest possible range of views, we interviewed managers at different career stages, including those working at either operational or planning levels with a local or regional focus from multiple land management agencies. We selected researchers for their expertise in forest and fire management from a broad range of research institutions and that were also
representative of various career stages. To enable comparisons between groups and specifically address our research questions, we limited our participant pool to those working within fire-prone tall forests. The tall wet-forest ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest share similar fire regimes with wet-forest types in south-eastern Australia. Both regions also support drier foothills types suited to shorter intervals of lower severity fire (Swanson et al. 2010).
The interviews aimed to gather information on the challenges to managing landscapes for spatially beneficial patterns of fire for biodiversity. The interviews were structured around several key areas in fire ecology. These included eliciting attitudes to; priorities in fire management and research, the current state of fire knowledge, current fire
management practices, management institutional structures and frameworks, current fire policies, knowledge transfer and integration, community engagement in fire
182
researchers questions. Interviews were approximately one hour in length. All interviews were digitally recorded and subsequently transcribed in full. In accordance with human ethics guidelines, all personal identifiers were removed from the transcripts. To identify key themes, barriers and enablers within the data, we conducted manual content analysis in accordance with the approach described in Patton (2002). To validate each identified theme, we used the triangulation method outlined by Creswell and Miller (2000), where only themes which occurred between multiple participants were recorded and then cross-referenced in the literature for corroborating evidence. We grouped responses to a key set of overarching core questions into agreements, disagreement or no clear opinion and calculated the proportion of managers and researchers with each response. Finally, we interpreted the themes, barriers and enablers elicited from the content analysis to identify steps to achieving spatially based ecological fire management and to develop a conceptual systems diagram.
183
6.4 Results
Summary of views to key issues in fire ecology and management
We found several key issues in fire ecology were similarly viewed by land managers and researchers (Figure. 1). Both groups considered current land management agencies to be employing ecological principles as part of their burning programs. However, both groups strongly agreed that fire management was currently under resourced to achieve its aims. Similarly, both groups strongly agreed that current fire management tools and practices could be used to create or manage for desirable patterns of fire in the
landscape. Both groups agreed that forested systems in the Pacific Northwest and south- eastern Australia currently experience unsuitable fire regimes. However, a minority of managers (37.5%) and researchers (35%) considered current levels of prescribed fire to be sufficient.
We also identified three key areas where managers and researchers had divergent views. We observed opposing views between managers (37.5%) and researchers (85%)
concerning whether ecological and asset protection burning practices were
complementary. Only a small number of researchers (20%) and managers (37.5%) agreed that the spatial arrangement of fire was currently considered in fire management plans. We found that researchers (100%) and managers (70%) identified collaborations with land managers an important component of achieving spatially based fire
management. However, researchers (100%) and managers (50%) differed in their level of regular external collaborations.
184
Figure 1. Contrasting views on key issues relating to the spatial management of fire between the 32 participants
Barriers and enablers to employing a spatial approach to fire management in forested systems
We found wide-ranging views relating to barriers and enablers to employing a spatial approach to fire management in forested ecosystems (Table 1). We grouped barriers and enablers under five themes which emerged from the data; knowledge, integration, community, policy and institutional. Within each theme, we identified categories which describe specific aspects influencing spatial fire management.
Barriers relating to the development and use of ecological knowledge could be divided into two categories. ‘Fundamental science’ barriers identified by researchers included a lack of scientific consensus on core concepts and poor research tools for investigating complex spatio-temporal landscape patterns. Land managers identified as barriers, the infancy of the field, the theoretical rather than applied nature of current understanding, and research projects not framed within a management context. We categorized barriers relating to the use of existing research knowledge by management agencies as
0 50 100
I have personal relationships with managers / scientists It is important to involve land managers in research Institution structures aid ecological fire managent Ecological and asset protection practices are complitmentary The current extent of ecological burning is sufficient There is currently too much fire in forests Current applied tools can be used to manage fire spatially We currently manage for spatial patterns of fire There is sufficient literature to manage fire for biodiversity Ecological fire management is appropriately funded Ecological fire management is currenly practiced
Percentage of particpants in agreement researchers managers
185
‘institutional barriers’. Both groups identified the lack of area-specific knowledge, the absence of monitoring beyond first level fire effects and inadequate integrated modeling tools as reasons for current spatial planning decisions being based largely on intuition. Barriers relating to knowledge integration could be categorized as ‘institutional’ or ‘policy’ related. Both groups identified the difference in cultures between management and research, the delayed uptake of research and the lack of policy makers with
scientific backgrounds as barriers to the integration of spatial fire research into land management.
We identified a complex system of prioritization, policy development and
implementation was responsible for the interpretation and application of spatial fire knowledge. This complex system presented some key barriers to achieving spatially based fire management. Within this system we divided these barriers into three core components, ‘community’, ‘policy’, and ‘institutional’. Community barriers were those identified by participants to be dependent on public values, education and restrictions imposed on management actions. These included comments such as the lack of value placed on burnt forests, the contentious nature of fire management, and societal
constraints on windows for applied burning due to air pollution restrictions. Institutional barriers were divided into three categories; prioritization, operational and
organizational. Prioritization barriers were those relating to the decision-making context within which knowledge is applied, including a focus on fire suppression and close associations between land management and resource extraction agencies. Operational barriers concerned the ability of agencies to manage fires spatially due to lack of resourcing, an absence of a whole-of-range scale approach to fire and limited windows for applied burning. Organizational barriers were those relating to structures and
186
processes within agencies. These included the limited scope for adaptive learning within top-down hierarchically-based institutions and the over-riding of long-term land
management structures by emergency management structures during fire events. Policy- related barriers were classified as ‘legislative’ or ‘systematic’. Legislative barriers were those relating to current policies, such as mandated area burn targets, endangered species legislation and black-out burning. Systematic barriers were those related to current policy development frameworks and included the lack of manager involvement in policy creation and inappropriately lengthy intervals between reviews of major over- arching fire policies.
In addition to these system-based barriers, both land managers and researchers identified influential environmental factors within each of the six major themes
identified. These included landscape-level factors such as varying spatial-temporal fire regimes between systems, contrasting habitat requirements of key species and
threatening processes such as habitat loss, climate change and invasive species. We visualized the relationships between these barriers and landscapes within a conceptual diagram (Figure 2).
187
Table 1. List of barriers and enablers to the spatial management of fire within each of six core themes identified from structured interviews with land managers and researchers.
Theme Barriers Enablers
Knowledge Fundamental science
- Emerging field of research - Mostly theoretical not practical - Poor ecological models/ research approach
- Knowledge still contentious within research community
-Literature in formats not relevant to management
Institutional knowledge
- Not location specific
- Only first order effects monitored - Managing spatial patterns based on intuition
- Don’t know what a desirable mosaic looks like
- Lack accurate integrated modeling system to predict effects of fire
- rapidly developing field - Understanding currently ahead of practices
Integration Institutional
- Cultural differences between land managers and researchers
-delayed uptake of knowledge by agencies
Policy
-Disconnect because policy makers are non-scientists
- Personal relationships between practitioners and researchers deliver science directly to the ground. - Internal knowledge brokers
- Land grant colleges funded for extension activities
- Knowledge brokerage schemes
- Involving land managers in research creates relevant knowledge products community Values
- Highly contentious activity
- Values based decisions are a societal responsibility
Education
- Public sees no value in burnt forests - Lack of understanding of fire ecology and suppression
188 Restrictions
- Social constraints on prescribed burning
- Air quality issue prohibit restrict windows for applied burning Policy Legislative
- Mandated area targets - Asset protection and life
preservation number one priority - Endangered species legislation can prohibit beneficial restoration activities
- Blackout burning reduces internal heterogeneity
Systematic
- Managers work within constraints of government policy
- Landscape strategies reviewed at inappropriately long intervals Institutional Prioritization
- Focus on suppression
- Poor monitoring and evaluation frameworks
- Decisions based on intuition - Management institutions aligned with resource institutions
Operational
- High workloads on managers - Do not manage at sufficiently large spatial scales
- Insufficient resources - Land ownership
- Tools not employed at sufficient scales
- Windows (Seasons and conditions) for planned burning limited
Organizational
- During fires emergency management structures override other long term planning structures
- Coordination between highly specialized individuals challenging - Hierarchical top down structures inhibit adaptive learning
- Burning and biodiversity officers
-Current tools effective at creating desirable patterns - Prescribed fire could be used effectively
- Use mechanical treatments when burns
189
Figure 2. A conceptual diagram which illustrates the relationships between research, complex socio-political priority, decisions and implementation systems, environmental factors and fire landscapes.