Fire Management and Risk Perception Through a Multi-Scale Organizational Lens

Observed increases in wildfire frequency, the number of large fires, and fire season length in many portions of the U.S. demonstrate that wildfires are a formidable and impending threat to many communities (Harvey, 2016). Growing wildfire activity impacts the economy, ecology, agriculture, health and safety, and cultural traditions. Furthermore, wildfires cause an increase in human fatalities and property loss; an increase in resource demand for disaster prevention and recovery; an increase in carbon and particle emissions from fire activity, which cause adverse environmental effects; and loss of access to traditionally significant plants, animals, and resources (Liu et al., 2013; Voggesser et al., 2013). Exacerbating this threat further is development and related population increase at the wildland-urban interface (WUI), where communities intersect with forested areas at risk of fire (USGCRP, 2018). Stressing the urgent relevance of this threat was the occurrence of devastating wildfires in 2023 that impacted communities across the United States, from Maui in the west to drifting Canadian smoke plumes in the east. Not only were lives lost and upended, but the August Maui fire became known as the deadliest in recent history (Treisman, 2023).

To combat threats associated with an increase in wildfires, resource and fire managers seek to understand potential risks and hazards. As they strive to adapt to, plan for, and manage responses to wildfires, they must navigate politically, organizationally, socially, and environmentally complex situations within their own organization and across those at different institutional scales. Generally speaking, fire managers fall within the fields of emergency management, city and rural fire departments, federal land management departments, prescribed burn associations, and more, with each agency following different strategies, priorities, and jurisdictions. A critical component of how they operate is shaped by their perceptions, expertise, and goals. Doing their work effectively and efficiently demands understanding of fire management, risk perception, and decision-making at these various levels, as well as coordination among, and awareness of, these organizational constructs.

To better understand how fire managers navigate the complexities of climate-induced wildfire risk and pressures exerted at various scales (e.g., federal, state, and local), surveys and focus groups were utilized. Surveys were dispersed at a national level to federal and state fire managers. Five focus groups were then held with local fire managers in northeast, northwest, central, southeast, and southwest Oklahoma. Participants were asked how they access, assess, perceive, and prioritize risk and information driving their personal and organizational/agency-level fire management decisions. In addition, fire managers were asked about their utilization of forecasts, outlooks, and weather and climate tools. Results of the surveys and focus groups were robust, with myriad similarities and differences across the various fire management levels.

Among the key findings were that fire managers at all levels were concerned that wildfire risks and associated hazards were increasing. However, more managers at the federal, regional, and state level were concerned about climate change and its relationship to wildfire risk. While local fire managers did think fires were becoming harder to manage, the majority blamed the risk on poor fuel and land management, as well as challenges from an increasing population in the WUI. In addition, local fire managers felt strongly about the need for public education regarding prescribed burning and land management. Pressures were felt by all fire managers to prioritize certain decisions. Internal politics based on different personality types and agendas, local government agendas, jurisdictional power, media pressure, and public/landowner opinion exerted more pressure at the local level, with funding pressures prominent at the state and federal level. A significant challenge shared by all was staffing, whether that be recruitment, retention, or worry for the safety of their teams.

While these were common themes highlighted in the surveys and focus groups, statistical and qualitative analysis provided additional insight. The robust information garnered and shared through this process has broad benefits to society, the environment, and fire managers, as well as more localized potential. Posing questions about tools, wildfires, perceptions, decision-making, and how pressures influence organizational actions can richly inform state-specific policy and organizational decision-making. Furthermore, these research results can be leveraged to identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities related to agency practices, structures, processes, and allocation of resources. Learning how to better support fire managers and their needs will, in turn, better serve their communities.