Cited by 159Fire effects on ecosystemsAmerican Environmental and Regional HistoryDisaster Management and Resilience

Wildfire Management in the United States: The Evolution of a Policy Failure

Busenberg, George·2004·Review of Policy Research

Abstract

Wildland fires constitute a major crisis in American environmental policy, a crisis created by a longstanding policy failure. This article explores the political processes that generated and reinforced this policy failure over time. The concepts of bounded rationality, punctuated equilibria, and self‐ reinforcing mechanisms are applied to study the evolution of American wildfire policy between 1905 and the present. This study finds that a self‐defeating wildfire suppression policy was established in the period 1905 through 1911, and subsequently reinforced for more than five decades. This policy did not include a complementary program to counteract the gradual accumulation of flammable organic materials (fuels) that occurred in many ecosystems when fires were suppressed. The resulting fuel accumulations have greatly increased the risk of damaging, high‐intensity wildfires in a range of American wildlands. A combination of fire suppression and fuel reduction programs will be needed to manage this risk in the future.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2004.00066.x

Cites

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?

  • Political responses to increasing wildfire risk and highly damaging events have typically focused on increasing the suppression response.

    “In the face of the increasing wildfire risk and highly damaging events, political responses have typically focused on increasing the suppression response (Busenberg 2004).”

    From Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management (2015) · cites this paper as Busenberg 2004

  • Wildfire suppression without a commensurate program to address the fuel accumulation resulting from the aggressive suppression policy represents a major policy error in federal fire management.

    “Wildfire suppression without a commensurate program to address the fuel accumulation resulting from the aggressive suppression policy represents a major policy error in federal fire management (Busenberg 2004).”

    From Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management (2015) · cites this paper as Busenberg 2004

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Busenberg, G.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Denver (US)
Corresponding author
Busenberg, George
Venue
Review of Policy Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-02-12
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
145-156
ISSN
  • 1541-132X (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-1338
OpenAlex
W2160164468
Cited by
159
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Review of Policy Research (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › American Environmental and Regional History
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
Keywords
wildfire management, policy failure, fuel accumulation, fuel reduction, bounded rationality, punctuated equilibrium, self-reinforcing mechanisms, environmental policy, political process, United States

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