Wildfire Management in the United States: The Evolution of a Policy Failure
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
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?
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
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
Fire in the Northeast: Learning from the Past, Planning for the Future
Poulos, H. (2015) · Journal of Sustainable Forestry · doi:10.1080/10549811.2014.973608 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- 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