An Alternative Incentive Structure for Wildfire Management on National Forest Land
Abstract
Wildfire suppression expenditures on national forest land have increased over the last 35 years, exceeding US$1 billion in 2000 and 2002. These increases in expenditure have been attributed, in part, to a century of aggressive wildfire suppression, resulting in a buildup of fuel on the nation's forests. The efficiency of the current incentive structure faced by Forest Service fire managers is analyzed. An alternative incentive structure is presented that encourages fire managers, as they work to limit wildfire damages, to contain costs and consider the beneficial effects of wildfire. FOR. SCI. 51(5):387–395.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The existing incentive structure and budget process provides only weak feedback in terms of internalizing the impact of wildfire suppression spending on decision makers charged with managing wildland fires.
“the existing incentive structure and budget process provides only weak feedback in terms of internalizing the impact of wildfire suppression spending on decision makers charged with managing wildland fires (Donovan and Brown 2005;Thompson et al. 2013).”
From Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management (2015) · cites this paper as Donovan and Brown 2005
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management
Calkin, D. E., Thompson, M. P., & Finney, M. A. (2015) · Forest Ecosystems · doi:10.1186/s40663-015-0033-8 · Cited by 323 · see citing works
<scp>U.S.</scp> federal fire and forest policy: emphasizing resilience in dry forests
Stephens, S. L., Collins, B. M., Biber, E., & Fulé, P. Z. (2016) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.1584 · Cited by 205 · see citing works
Modeling Containment of Large Wildfires Using Generalized Linear Mixed-Model Analysis
Finney, M., Grenfell, I. C., & McHugh, C. W. (2009) · Forest Science · doi:10.1093/forestscience/55.3.249 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Allowing a wildfire to burn: estimating the effect on future fire suppression costs
Houtman, R. M., Montgomery, C. A., Gagnon, A. R., Calkin, D. E., Dietterich, T. G., McGregor, S., & Crowley, M. (2013) · International Journal of Wildland Fire · doi:10.1071/wf12157 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
A Risk-Based Approach to Wildland Fire Budgetary Planning
Thompson, M. P., Calkin, D. E., Finney, M. A., Gebert, K. M., & Hand, M. S. (2013) · Forest Science · doi:10.5849/forsci.09-124 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
- Authors
- Donovan, G. H., & Brown, T. C.
- Affiliations
- Pacific Northwest Research Station (US)
- Rocky Mountain Research Station (US)
- Venue
- Forest Science
- Published
- 2005-10-01
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 387-395
- ISSN
- 0015-749X (ISSN-L)
- 1938-3738
- OpenAlex
- W1437695407
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 2.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Forest Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
- Keywords
- wildfire management, incentive structures, national forests, wildfire suppression costs, forest services, wildfire damage, cost containment, forest management policy
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
