Issues in Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Fuel Treatments to Reduce Wildfire in the Nation’s Forests (Classic Reprint)

For much of the 20th century, Wildland fire suppression was a maj or compo nent of federal forest policy. Since the late 1960s and early 19705, recognition of the natural role of fire in ecosystem processes as well as mounting fire suppression expenditures gradually led to an easing of the fire suppression mandate, refocus ing forest policy to consider fire by prescription, subordinate to broader landscape objectives (pyne Restoring fire to ecosystems after decades of fire sup pression poses many challenges owing to long-term changes in the structure and composition of plant communities, as well as increased presence of pe0p1e, homes, and other structures near forests (hourdequin 2001, Parsons Any restora tion path we choose for a given landscape defines a particular ecological trajectory characterized by a flow of goods and services accruing from the natural capital inherent in healthy ecosystems (science and Policy Working Group 2002, Ecosystem restoration decisions ultimately are economic decisions whereby soci ety evaluates the utility of different management alternatives, including inaction (weigand and Haynes Embarking on one particular management and policy alternative necessarily carries costs associated with other opportunities that are foregone. Although fuel treatments undoubtedly can be used to alter forest struc ture and modify wildfire behavior and severity (graham and others to date there has been little scientific evidence demonstrating whether fuel treatments make economic sense.