HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA976L
[
-P
L
~ D
-'
-
0
[
0
0
OD
D
0
~B ~
0
~
--
p
IJ
c
c
r
ECONOMIC TRADEOFFS IN FIRE MANAGEMENT
by
John A. Zivnuska
Dean, School of Forestry and Conservation
University of California
Berkeley, California
ABSTRACT
The economics of fire management involves
the interactions of various unquantified sets
of probabilities. In the absence of a planned
input of fire, any wildland area will in-
volve some set of probabilities of developing
various characteristics in the absence of
fire which man may consider as either costs
or benefits depending on his objectives, and
another set of probabilities of the occurrence
of wildfires of various sizes and intensities
which will change the set of probable out-
comes.
The introduction of the planned use of
fire into such a system will change both of
these sets of probabilities. Fire management
will involve costs such as the direct costs
of the burning program, the probabilities of
.escape, the .overheaa costs of the. planning and
administration, and direct detrimental effects
including contributions to air pollution and
adverse effects on vegetation and soil char-
acteristics. This use of fire will also
involve consequences such as reduction in
fuel volumes, the alteration of successional
patterns, changes in appearance, modification
of infiltration and runoff relationships for
precipitation, and changes in the danger of
damage to improvements from conflagrations.
These consequences may be classified as
either costs or benefits, depending on their
nature and their relationship to managerial
objectives. Uncertainty is an overriding
characteristic, which in an economic sense
must be classified as a cost.
There are urgent needs for changes in
land management practices and for effective
fuel management, both of which potentially
can be achieved by fire management. Alterna-
tive manipulation methods, including mechani-
cal means and the use of chemicals, are not
complete substitutes and involve very different
cost and benefit patterns. Economically as
well as ecologically, the only wholly defen-
sible generalization about fire management
is that each case is unique and must stand on
its own.
69
INTRODUCTION
Several years ago I was the leader of a
research group studying the economics of
wildlife control in California. Since fire
control expenditures are made for the purpose
of reducing the area burned and the extent
of fire damage, we were interested in deter-
mining the decrease in burned area which
would be associated with a given increase in
control expenditures. First we ran a simple
regression showing area burned as a function
of the level of control expenditures. The
relationship was strong, but unfortunately
the results showed that the greater the ex-
penditures on fire control, the greater the
area burned.
This was easy to explain. Obviously
in the years in which climatic conditions
and other factors resulted in large fires,
great increases in expenditures were necessary
in the control effort. Our problem was to
allow for the various forces which led to an
increase in the wildfire workload so that we
could net out the effect of control expendi-
tures in decreasing burned area. We approached
this through multiple regression methods,
spending six months developing quantitative
records of as many variables as possible. The
final outcome of all this was a result showing
no relationship whatever between control
expenditures and the area burned.
While all this was disappointing, none of
it was surprising. Results such as these have
been obtained in many studies of fire econo-
mics. The unpublished literature of research
in this field is surely far greater than the
published literature.
Such results are significant to my topic
in this paper, for they illustrate what I
believe to be the dominant characteristic of
the economics of fire management. This is
the total inadequacy of the data of fire
management as a basis for developing sound
quantitative estimates of the relationships
involved. The technical problems of economic
analysis of fire phenomena are abundant, but
in a sense they are of little consequence
so long as we are unable to demonstrate and
quantify the physical and biological
relationships which are involved. My remarks
here will be in large part an elaboration of
this theme.
THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Consider, for example, any forest area
or other wildland vegetation system, which is
currently under a management regime which
does not include the prescribed use of fire.
This vegetation may follow any one of a num-
ber of widely varying patterns of develop-
ment over any particular period into the future
which may be of interest. The present vege-
tation may develop wholly unmodified by fire.
A series of light wildfires may reduce the
litter, substantially alter the understory,
and have little or no effect on the overstory.
A major conflagration may completely eliminate
the present vegetation, setting the stage
for the processes of secondary succession.
A whole series of other events may occur, any
one of which would substantially alter the
outcome. To the extent that our knowledge
is adequate, we should be able to describe
this set of possible outcomes and estimate
the probability that each possible outcome
will actually be realized.
Now assume that prescribed burning is
introduced into this vegetation system as
an element in a revised management regime.
Presumably the entire set of possible outcomes
will be changed by this introduction of fire
management into the system. There will now
be no chance that the vegetation will develop
wholly unmodified by fire. The extent of
modification will, of course, depend in part
on the type of burning which is prescribed
and the manager's success in holding his fire
within the limits of his prescription. In
addition, the probabilities of the occurrence
of various wildfire patterns will also be
altered. The probability of a sequence of
light wildfires will be modified in one degree.
The probability of a major conflagration may
also be modified, probably to a different
degree. Again, if our knowledge were ade-
quate, we should be able to describe this new
set of possible outcomes and estimate the
probability that each possible outcome will
actually be realized.
Thus, in introducing fire management
into various land management regimes, we do
not replace one certain outcome by another
certain outcome. Instead, we replace one set
of widely varying possible outcomes, each
with its own probability, by another set of
possible outcomes.
Each of these sets of possible outcomes
and the various inputs which are required by
the related management regime serve to define
the physical production function for that
management regime. From the economic stand-
point, all of the inputs constitute costs.
The individual elements of each possible out-
come may constitute additional costs,
70
because of being adverse to the interests of
management, or may be considered as benefits,
because of being favorable to the interests
of management.
If the production relationships were
known with some reasonable degree of detail
and reliability, the task of ec0nomic analysis
would involve the appraisal of the amounts of
the costs and the benefits associated with each
possible outcome. Using some appropriate
means for weighing each possible outcome by
its probability of occurrence and discounting
back to the present, it would then be possible
to estimate the present value of the benefits
and the costs of the set of possible outcomes
associated with each management regime. If the
regime involving prescribed burning had a
higher benefits-cost ratio than the alterna-
tive regime, it would be the economically
preferable of the two management approaches.
I should hasten to add that in making such
an analysis, the economist would encounter a
great many problems in the pricing of goods
.and services which fall outside the market
system and in determining the appropriate
means of weighting the various possible out-
comes.
Obviously, other management alternatives
should also be considered. Fuels can be modi-
fied and successional patterns altered by
mechanical means or by chemical treatments as
well as by prescribed burning. Various com-
binations of mechanical, chemical, and pres-
cribed burning treatments are also possible.
A full economic study will require analysis
of the various management approaches which
preliminary investigations and past experience
indicate may be feasible.-
On the other hand, if production rela-
tionships have not been established, the econo-
mist has no basis for proceeding with an
analysis and instead must fall back on two
alternatives, neither of which is particularly
satisfying. He may resort to the building and
analysis of models of fire management, as in
this paper. Alternatively, he may try himself
to develop estimates of the physical production
relationships, in which case he quickly moves
out of the area of his specialized competence•
While there are a wide range of specific
objectives which may lead to the prescribing
of fire as an element in a management regime,
they can be aggregated under two main headings
for purposes of discussion. One general pur-
pose is to reduce the costs associated with
wildfire control and damage by reducing fuel
volumes and modifying fuel structure on the
management unit. The other general purpose
is to alter the successional sequence to favor
the development of some condition desired by
man, such as the establishment of regeneration
of a desired species, increasing the carrying
capacity for deer, or enhancing the aesthetic
and recreat.ional attributes of the area.
My comments to this point have been in-
tended to set the general conceptual
[
[
[
[
[
[
D
D
c
E
c
B
c
~
n
b
[
[
r· t
I [
[
p
L
D
-C
[
D
D .
u ;
l
-o
~
~0
-[]
-c
~
Fl
fj
-o
D
[
framework for economic analysis of the pres-
cribed use of fire. In the balance of the
paper, I will elaborate on some of these ele-
ments.
SOME COSTS OF PRESCRIBED BURNING
The prescribed use of fire involves a
number of direct costs, which are generally
recognized and easily appraised. These
direct costs include the costs of men and
equipment used in the burning operation and
the cost of fire control equipment held in a
stand-by condition to limit the possibility
of escapes. They also include advance pre-
paration of the area for burning by means
such as mechanical crushing or spraying with
herbicides.
In addition, there are various overhead
costs, indirect costs, and costs associated
with undesired effects of the prescribed fire.
It is my impression that these additional
costs greatly outweigh the direct costs in
many situations, yet I have not seen any
empiric studies which provide adequate
coverage of all these cost elements.
The costs of planning and scheduling
the burning operations and of shifting men and
equipment to the burning site are typical of
the overhead costs involved. The costs of
shifting men and equipment and holding them
in a stand-by status can mount rapidly
when unexpected meteorological conditions
force the last-minute cancellation of burns.
Generally such costs will not be high in
small operations in which there is a high
mobility in work assignments, but they are
likely to increase significantly with the
loss of flexibility which is often found in
larger and more complex administrative organi-
zations.
Another major cost consideration is the
risk that the fire will escape and burn
beyond its planned limits. Again we are deal-
ing with a whole set of possible outcomes,
each with its own probability. There is some,
usually quite low, probability that the pres-
cribed fire will become a major conflagration
covering a vast area. There is another,
usually appreciably higher, probability
that. the fire will spread over the control
line and burn a small additional area. Every
program of prescribed burning in the western
United States with which I am familiar,
whether for debris burning, reservoir clear-
ing, slash disposal, range improvement, or
fuel reduction, has a long history of escapes
of various sizes, including some fires of
major proportions.
The cost of this risk could be measured
by the aggregate Of the costs associated with
each of the possible escape outcomes
appropriately weighted by its probability of
occurrence. Even a very low probability of a
very high cost can be a significant cost
factor.
Obviously the costs associated with any
given escape will depend upon the nature of the
area which is burned and the intensity of the
fire. In this regard the changing patterns of
land use which are now taking place are acting
to increase greatly the costs associated with
escapes. The fragmentation of land ownership
and the development of houses and other in-
provements in broadly scattered locations in
wildland areas is becoming a major deterrent to
many programs of prescribed burning.
Another cost of rapidly growing impor-
tance is that associated with smoke and con-
tributions to air pollution. Until recently
little attention was given to this, although
resort operators complained that their trade
was adversely affected by smoke from pres-
cribed burning and the effectiveness of fire
detection systems was often reduced by the haze
from such fires. Whatever cost was involved
was manifested in environmental degradation
and was not borne by the individual landowner.
Currently organized society is no longer
willing to accept such contributions to air
pollution and is moving to restrict the
practices of landowners. In the United States
a number of the individual states are imposing
increasingly restrictive limitations on the
conditions under which agricultural and wild-
land burning may be conducted. There .are
requirements both for the advance preparation
of fuels and for sharp limitations on the
meteorological conditions under which burning
can be conducted. In addition, it now appears
probable that the Environmental Protection
Agency will move to impose national standards
on such open land burning, and that in doing
so the Agency will place the burden of proof
on the landowner.
71
Such controls obviously act to increase
the direct costs of prescribed burning. In
addition, they act to modify, and commonly to
increase, the costs associated with scheduling
problems and with the risk of escape.
The argument is often made that pres-
cribed burning is not a major contributor to
smog and that, in any case, the trade-off
between the contributions to air pollution from
prescribed fires and the reduction in air
pollution due to reduced wildfires is favorable
on balance. While the argument has some merit,
it suffers from three major flaws. First,
there are inadequate data to demonstrate that
prescribed burning does, in fact, result in a
net reduction in air pollution through re-
ductions in wildfires. Second, there are
alternate means of modifying fuels which should
also reduce wildfires and which would not them-
selves contribute smoke to the atmosphere.
Third, organized society does, through its
legal institutions, place a responsibility on
the owner for the results of his prescribed
fires and does not place an equivalent res-
ponsibility on him for wildfires, except under
special conditions of negligence contributing
to the development of hazardous conditions.
Finally, there are the whole series of•
costs associated with undesired consequences
of the prescribed use of fire. Examples of
such undesired consequences include the kill-
ing of regeneration which is desired, the loss
of nutrients either directly in the combustion
process or indirectly through accelerated run-
off, the development of fire scars on crop
trees, and loss of aesthetic quality during
the period in which evidence of the fire is
readily visible. Obviously, the magnitude of
such costs will vary tremendously both with
the success of the prescribed burning and
from property to property.
THE EFFECTS ON WILDFIRE PATTERNS
One of the primary sources of the present
high level of interest in prescribed burning
in North America is the seemingly intractable
problem of wildfire control. Conventional
fire control programs were initially highly
effective in reducing losses to fire. How-
ever, efforts to meet the problems of the 2
or 3 percent of the fires burning under ex-·
treme conditions through further intensifi-
cation of these measures seem to involve
operating in the zone of rapidly diminishing
returns. At the same time there is abundant
evidence that in many regions there is a
growing problem in the accumulation of dan-
gerous fuels as a result of the past successes
of the fire exclusion policy combined with
successful forest regeneration programs, ex-
tensive logging operations, and similar ef-
fects of man on the land. Fur.ther, some types
such as chaparral are increasingly being re-
cognized as fire climaxes, in which the natu-
ral development of the vegetation involves an
accumulation of fuels to such a degree that
fire becomes the natural element for initiat-
ing the replacement of an overmature stand of
brush by a newly established stand of brush.
Out of all this has come a general recog-
nition that fuel modification and management
may be essential to the achievement of any ma-
jor improvement in current efforts to control
the wildfire problem. The concept of compre-
hensive fuel management programs involves a
great many forms of action other than the
direct reduction of fuels. However, pre~
scribed burning is being given particular at-
tention, since it is a very direct method of
achieving fuel modification and throughout
the ages has been man's traditional tool for
this purpose.
The nature and extent of fuel modification
resulting from prescribed burning will, of
course, depend on the type of vegetation and
the way in which fire is used. In such in-
stances as slash burning or brushfield opera-
tions, the usual pattern is to have the fire
extend throughout the fuel structure and con-
sume a major portion of the fuel volume. In
forest stands, in contrast, the usual pattern
72
involves a substantial reduction of ground
fuels and a break in the continuity of fuels
between the ground and the crowns of the domi-
nant trees, with very little effect on the
overstory itself.
The logical results of such fuel modifi-
cation should be a reduction in the occurrence,
intensity, and rate of spread of wildfires and
an increased ease of control of such fires.
However, we have very little hard evidence as
to extent and significance of such changes. We
need to know not only what the effect will ~e
under the "average bad" conditions beloved of
fire control planners, but also what the effect
will be under the extreme conflagration condi-
tions which are the primary source of fire dam-
age in much of North America. Evidence on this
latter point is extremely fragmentary and has
been subject to widely varying interpretations
depending on the predilections of the interpre-
ters.
These comments have been directed to ig-
norance as to the specific effects of fuel mod-
ification by prescribed burning on specific
areas. Such ignorance is at least equalled by
ignorance at the programmatic level. In a real
sense, any program of prescribed burning for
fire control p·urposes involves the substitution
of fuel consumption by planned fires for fuel
consumption by unplanned fires. But where do
we come out on balance in any such process?
There is a need for some broad ecosystem-type
analyses covering broad areas and designed to
estimate the total areas burned, the volumes of
fuel consumed, and the calories of heat re-
leased over a period of years by wildfires in
the absence of of prescribed burning as com-
pared to similar data for the effects of an ex-
tensive prescribed burning program plus the re-
sidual wildfire effects. Obviously such over-
all effects are only a part of the story, but
they are a part which I have yet to see dis-
cussed in analytical terms.
A third significant area for inquiry is
that of the duration of the effects of pre-
scribed burning. Some investigators have ar-
gued that prescribed burning results in accel-
ererated rates of needle and twig fall and the
accumulation of bark scales and other litter,
which very quickly replace the fuels removed in
the burning operation. Others contend that
once some degree of fuel control has been
achieved, it can be maintained readily through
subsequent broadcast, low intensity fires. In
any case, it is evident that knowledge of the
duration of the beneficial effects of fuel re-
duction by prescribed burning is of critical
importance not only to estimating the magnitude
of these benefits but·also to estimating the
re-burning cycle that will be required and the
related level of cost. And it is equally evi-
dent that in many regions of North America we
have little definitive information on these
points.
THE EFFECTS ON SUCCESSIONAL PATTERNS
~·-
[
r
r
L
D
[
[
[
D
c
E
c
E
[
D
r...,
b
[
[
[
~---------·-------------------------------~-----~---~---------------------··---------------------------.------·--. -·· ---· ----------
,[
[
-A
L
.n ~ld
[
[
!1 0
D
[]
i_o
D
~B
c
~
-"19
fJ
-o
0
[
In addition to its role in modifying fuels,
prescribed fire is a highly important tool in
in. the processes of ecological~ manipulation
involved in wildland resource management. It
may be used to clear freshly logged sites for
planting or as a stage in the conversion of
brushfields to grasslands or to forest planta-
tions. It can be used to control certain plant
diseases. It can be used to favor one species
over. -another in mixed stands. Indeed~ the
potential uses are nearly as varied as the veg-
tationtypes in which fire can be applied.
A large number of historical ecological
studies have now clearly established that fire
was a far more pervasive and significant factor
in the vegetation of North America when European
man first arrived here than was formerly be-
lieved to be the case. Many of our important
vegetation types are in large degree fire
types. The exclusion of fire can thus be in-
terpreted as the exclusion of a natural factor,
with far reaching effects on plant succession.
It is not clear, however, that this con-
cept of fire as a natural factor in North
American vegetation has any particular economic
significance. The vegetative systems in which
fire is prescribed today·are quite simply not
the same as the systems in which fire had its
pre-European man role. The forest regions in
which prescribed burning is of interest today
represent areas subject to extensive logging,
to precommercial thinnings, to applications
of fertilizers and herbicides, to artificial
regeneration practices, to plowing, discing,
and other mechanical manipulations, to delib-
erate policies of either fire exclusion or
regular burning, and generally to modern man's
values and devices --all of which are factors
which were not in effect in the period in which
fire could be considered a natural force.
Thus the central question is not the past
role of fire in shaping the natural vegetation,
but the present and potential role of fire as
an element in vegetation management systems
potentially involving all of these other forces.
Prescribed fire is simply one among many
devices which man uses in attempting to modify
successional patterns so as to increase the
yield of those values which he desires. While
its effects may be more complex than those of
many of-the other forces, it must be evaluated
in each specific context in much the same terms
as other possible management inputs.
Under intensive forest management, the
need for the prescribed use of fire for ecolo-
gical manipulation seems likely to be less than
under extensive management. The intensive
utilization which accompanies intensive manage-
ment eliminates much of the residual material
which in the past was a primary fuel of pre-
scribed fires, while direct means are used in
controlling species composition, spacing, and
similar aspects which in the past have been
indirectly controlled to some degree by fire.
73
SOME ALTERNATIVE MEANS
As I have mentioned at a number of points
in this paper, there are various other methods
of reducing and modifying fuels and modifying
successional patterns in addition to pre-
scribed burning.
The most widely used alternatives are
various mechanical methods. The axe, the saw,
the tractor equipped for crushing brush or
slash, and the chipper are obvious examples.
Other devices are being developed in response
to mounting needs. In contrast to prescribed
burning, the direct costs of using these
mechanical means tend to be the major part of
their total costs. This has often seemed
to place such methods at a disadvantage
relative to fire, since the indirect costs of
fire have frequently not been recognized.
Whatever the balance between the two
approaches today, it seems likely to move
increasingly to favor mechanical means. I
make this prediction in part because of the
expectation that technological progress will
be more rapid in equipment development than in
prescribed burning methods. In much greater
part, however, this prediction is based on
the obvious trend of organized society to
force the managing agency to bear the indirect
costs as well as the direct costs of the
operation and on the related growing impor-
tance of using methods which can be closely
controlled.
The other major set of alternqtives
involves the use of chemicals. Here the
situation is more confused, because we are
now in a period of mounting public concern
that chemicals may involve subtle but far-
reaching side effects. Further research may
either dispel or confirm such fears, and
research may also develop alternative chemi-
cals which are more acceptable in terms of
potential indirect costs. At present, how-
ever, the effect appears to be to favor the
use of prescribed fire in situations in which
it is an alternative to chemical applications.
CONCLUSIONS
In concluding, I would like to emphasize
that since primeval times the deliberate use
of fire has been one of man's most powerful
tools in managing the land. Prescribed fire
remains today as potentially one of our most
powerful tools in responding to two major
problem areas in wildland resource manage-
ment --the management of fuels, to enable
a greater degree of control of the wildfire
problem, and the manipulation of ecological
forces to favor successional patterns desired
by man.
The economic case for the use of pre-
scribed burning, however, is marked by major
uncertainties. These uncertainties greatly
~
'1
~ ~
reduce our effectiveness in using fire.
In these comments I have approached the
economics of prescribed fire in the conventional
framework of benefits-costs analysis. However,
I have also stressed that the problem must
be approached in the framework of multiple
possible outcomes, each with its own probability.
Our present inability to specify these possible
outcomes and to estimate their individual pro-
babilities of occurrence, both with and without
the inclusion of prescribed burning in the
management regime, was emphasized as a primary
and major barrier to effective economic analy-
sis in this field. Thus I have directed the
major part of my paper to a discussion of
the production relationships which are basic
to economic evaluations.
Economically as well as ecologically, each
case of prescribed burning is unique in some
attributes and must stand on its own. The
elements which have been presented here should
all be considered in the judgment process on
which we must rely in major degree, since we
are unable to quantify any appreciable part
of the relationships involved.
I believe this analysis also demonstrates
the key importance of developing better pre-
scriptions for prescribed burning. The indirect
costs of this practice are in large part the
·consequence of uncertainties in its use.
Greater knowledge of the effects of various
intensities of burns combined with greater
ability to control the intensity of the fire
can serve both to reduce the costs and increase
the benefits'of prescribed burning.
This also appears to be the only route
with promise to maintain prescribed burning
as a management option in the face of rapidly
intensifying public regulations of all pro-
cesses resulting in emissions into the atmos-
phere. This issue may well be the key to the
future economic role of prescribed burning in
wildland resource management.
74
[
[
[
D
[
[
[
c
c
E
c
E
C
0
n t
c
[
[
[
'[
-c
-I
0 -! :'i !
~~ c
[
c _f .
I
0
D
D
0
B
c
~' ~ e;l -
-F~
tJ
-o
·C ) ~
L
ALTERNATIVES TO CONFLAGRATION
Use of Fire in Canadian Forests
J. H. G. Smith
Professor of Forestry
Faculty of Forestry .
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada.
R. C. Henderson
Professor and Lecturer
Faculty of Forestry
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada
Fire and the Environment
James p·. Johnston
Environmental Forester
Crown Zellerbach Corporation
Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.
Fire in the Australian Environment
Wilfred J.B. Crane
Research Officer
Tasmanian Forest·ry Commission
Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Alternatives to Conflagration Through the Use of Prescribed Burning
and Other Means
Dale C. Campbell
Woods Manager, Oklahoma Block
Weyerhaeuser Company, Dierks Division
P.O. Box 1060
Hot Springs, Arkansas 71901
75
j
" " ~ • ~I
~ ~ ~
5 ~
~ ;!
ll
J
j
'
ALTERNATIVES TO CONFLAGRATION (cont'd)
Prescribed Burning as an Alternative to Conflagrations: The Air
Pollution Potential
James L. Murphy
Assistant to Deputy Chief
Forestry Research
USDA Forest Service
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
76
[
[
[
B
[
[
c
[j
0
c
c
D
c
D
B
6
[
[
FIRE 1-N tHE ENVIRONMENT
SYMPOS M PROCE -EDINGS
·May 1-5, 2
Denver,-Colorado
Published by the Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agri
In Cooperation With the Fire Services of Canada, M
the United States -Members of the Fire Management Stu
'
North American Forestry Commission, FAO
so
421
.F574
1972
FS-276
"·.
sD
tf21
.fS74
l'il .:t..
FIRE IN THE ENVIRONMENT
SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS
May 1-5, 1972
Denver, Colorado
Published by the Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture
ln Cooperation With the Fire Services of Canada, Mexico, and
the United States -Members of the Fire Management Study Group,
North American Forestry Commission, FAO
ARLIS
Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Library Building, Suite Ill
3211 Providence Drive
Anchorage, AK 99508-4614
DECEMBER, 1972