A Practitioner-Centered Framework for Prescribed Fire Decision-Making: Implications for Managers
Presentation Type
Oral Presentation
Category
Social Sciences/Humanities
Abstract/Artist Statement
Prescribed fire is widely recognized as a critical tool for reducing wildfire severity and supporting ecological resilience, yet its implementation remains limited in many parts of the western United States. While prior research has identified numerous barriers to prescribed fire use, much of this work relies on survey-based approaches that capture constraints in isolation and often conflate wildfire risk with the distinct risks associated with prescribed burning. Less attention has been paid to how decision-makers themselves interpret, balance, and navigate these risks in real-world contexts.
This study explores what constrains and supports prescribed fire implementation among land management decision-makers in Western Montana, with particular attention to the mental, social, institutional, and biophysical dimensions of decision-making. Using qualitative methods, I conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with prescribed fire decision-makers across agencies, recruited through purposive and chain-referral sampling. Interviews were structured to move from participants’ roles and experiences to organizational decision-making, partnerships, and perceptions of prescribed fire risk and impact, with follow-up probes used to clarify meaning and deepen emerging themes.
Preliminary findings suggest that prescribed fire decision-making is not driven by single constraints, but by interconnected processes that include collective risk management, the strategic use of shared resources as leverage, and ongoing efforts to manage the public dimensions of risk. Participants also described a gradual cultural shift toward normalized fire use, supported by peer networks, institutional learning, and evolving professional norms. Building on these insights, this study develops a practitioner-centered conceptual framework that maps key factors constraining and supporting prescribed fire decisions.
By centering practitioner perspectives, this research advances understanding of the human dimensions of prescribed fire implementation in the western U.S. The findings have implications for agency training, cross-boundary collaboration, and communication strategies aimed at expanding safe and effective prescribed fire use amid increasingly complex fire management challenges.
Mentor Name
Elizabeth Covelli Metcalf
A Practitioner-Centered Framework for Prescribed Fire Decision-Making: Implications for Managers
UC 327
Prescribed fire is widely recognized as a critical tool for reducing wildfire severity and supporting ecological resilience, yet its implementation remains limited in many parts of the western United States. While prior research has identified numerous barriers to prescribed fire use, much of this work relies on survey-based approaches that capture constraints in isolation and often conflate wildfire risk with the distinct risks associated with prescribed burning. Less attention has been paid to how decision-makers themselves interpret, balance, and navigate these risks in real-world contexts.
This study explores what constrains and supports prescribed fire implementation among land management decision-makers in Western Montana, with particular attention to the mental, social, institutional, and biophysical dimensions of decision-making. Using qualitative methods, I conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with prescribed fire decision-makers across agencies, recruited through purposive and chain-referral sampling. Interviews were structured to move from participants’ roles and experiences to organizational decision-making, partnerships, and perceptions of prescribed fire risk and impact, with follow-up probes used to clarify meaning and deepen emerging themes.
Preliminary findings suggest that prescribed fire decision-making is not driven by single constraints, but by interconnected processes that include collective risk management, the strategic use of shared resources as leverage, and ongoing efforts to manage the public dimensions of risk. Participants also described a gradual cultural shift toward normalized fire use, supported by peer networks, institutional learning, and evolving professional norms. Building on these insights, this study develops a practitioner-centered conceptual framework that maps key factors constraining and supporting prescribed fire decisions.
By centering practitioner perspectives, this research advances understanding of the human dimensions of prescribed fire implementation in the western U.S. The findings have implications for agency training, cross-boundary collaboration, and communication strategies aimed at expanding safe and effective prescribed fire use amid increasingly complex fire management challenges.