Cited by 1,169Fire effects on ecosystemsDisaster Management and ResilienceRangeland and Wildlife Management

Learning to coexist with wildfire

Moritz, Max A., Batllori, Enric, Bradstock, Ross A., Gill, A. Malcolm, Handmer, John, Hessburg, Paul F., Leonard, Justin, McCaffrey, Sarah +3 more·2014·Nature

Abstract

The impacts of escalating wildfire in many regions - the lives and homes lost, the expense of suppression and the damage to ecosystem services - necessitate a more sustainable coexistence with wildfire. Climate change and continued development on fire-prone landscapes will only compound current problems. Emerging strategies for managing ecosystems and mitigating risks to human communities provide some hope, although greater recognition of their inherent variation and links is crucial. Without a more integrated framework, fire will never operate as a natural ecosystem process, and the impact on society will continue to grow. A more coordinated approach to risk management and land-use planning in these coupled systems is needed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature13946

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recognition that fire exclusion is neither desirable nor possible in many regions of the country is essential and will be a critical component of any effort to transform wildfire management.

    “Recognition that fire exclusion is neither desirable nor possible in many regions of the country is an essential (Moritz et al. 2014) and will be a critical component of any effort to transform wildfire management.”

    From Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management (2015) · cites this paper as Moritz et al. 2014

  • Certain landscape conditions and fire regimes are more amenable to fuel treatments and community capacity and institutional factors have a strong influence on social acceptability and capacity to act thus requiring context specific risk reduction strategies.

    “Further, certain landscape conditions and fire regimes are more amenable to fuel treatments and community capacity and institutional factors have a strong influence on social acceptability (Spies et al. 2014) and capacity to act thus requiring context specific risk reduction strategies (Moritz et al. 2014).”

    From Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management (2015) · cites this paper as Moritz et al. 2014

  • Prescribed fire is likely to be most effective in ecosystems that historically experienced frequent, low severity fires, yet less so in ecosystems characterized by infrequent, high severity fires.

    “Prescribed fire is likely to be most effective in ecosystems that historically experienced frequent, low severity fires, yet less so in ecosystems characterized by infrequent, high severity fires (Moritz et al., 2014).”
  • We do not include the effects of fuel treatment, which have been shown to be effective in some ecosystems.

    “Additionally, we do not include the effects of fuel treatment, which have been shown to be effective in some ecosystems [7].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 101 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moritz, M. A., Batllori, E., Bradstock, R. A., Gill, A. M., Handmer, J., Hessburg, P. F., Leonard, J., McCaffrey, S., Odion, D. C., Schoennagel, T., & Syphard, A. D.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • University of Wollongong (AU)
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • RMIT University (AU)
  • US Forest Service (US)
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • Conservation Biology Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Moritz, Max A.
Venue
Nature
Published
2014-11
Volume
515
Issue
7525
Pages
58-66
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2040266815
Cited by
1,169
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 124 · 2025: 116 · 2024: 128 · 2023: 129 · 2022: 111 · 2021: 122 · 2020: 99 · 2019: 95 · 2018: 83 · 2017: 64 · 2016: 69 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 2
FWCI
44.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
forest fires, wildfire risk management, fire-prone landscapes, climate change, land use planning, ecosystem services, fire suppression costs, enterprise risk management
MeSH terms
Australia, Conservation of Natural Resources, Fires, Geography, Housing, Humans, Human Activities, Population Density, Risk Management, Southwestern United States, Ecosystem, Mediterranean Region, Climate Change, Environmental Policy, Forests

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review