Barriers and enablers for prescribed burns for wildfire management in California


Prescribed burns to reduce fuel can mitigate the risk of catastrophic wildfires. However, multiple barriers limit their deployment, resulting in their underutilization, particularly in forests. We evaluate sociopolitical barriers and opportunities for greater deployment in California, an area recurrently affected by catastrophic fires. We use a mixed-methods approach combining expert interviews, state legislative policy analysis and prescribed-burn data from state records. We identify three categories of barriers. Risk-related barriers (fear of liability and negative public perceptions) prevent landowners from beginning the burn planning process. Both resource-related barriers (limited funding, crew availability and experience) and regulations-related barriers (poor weather conditions for burning and environmental regulations) prevent landowners from conducting burns, creating a gap between planning and implementation. Recent policies have sought to address mainly risk-related challenges, although these and regulations-related challenges remain. Fundamental shifts in prescribed-burn policies, beyond those currently under consideration, are needed to address wildfires in California and worldwide.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Process to conduct a prescribed burn by landowner.
Fig. 2: Trends in prescribed-burn implementation and wildfire-related proposed legislation.
Fig. 3: Barriers and enablers to deploying prescribed burns.

Data availability

For the interviews, the data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on request and under limits permissible by the Institutional Review Board. The data are not publicly available due to them containing information that could compromise research participant privacy/consent.

For PFIRS, the data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the California Air Resources Board’s Prescribed Fire Information Reporting System (

Source data on bills are available from the California State Legislature ( and are provided within the paper. Source data on acres burned are available from the National Interagency Fire Center’s Historical year-end fire statistics by state (source NICC) ( and are provided within the paper.


  1. 1.

    Dennison, P. E., Brewer, S. C., Arnold, J. D. & Moritz, M. A. Large wildfire trends in the western United States, 1984–2011. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 2928–2933 (2014).

  2. 2.

    Abatzoglou, J. T. & Williams, A. P. Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 11770–11775 (2016).

  3. 3.

    Ryan, K. C., Knapp, E. E. & Varner, J. M. Prescribed fire in North American forests and woodlands: history, current practice, and challenges. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, e15–e24 (2013).

  4. 4.

    Steel, Z. L., Safford, H. D. & Viers, J. H. The fire frequency‐severity relationship and the legacy of fire suppression in California forests. Ecosphere 6, 1–23 (2015).

  5. 5.

    North, M., Collins, B. M. & Stephens, S. Using fire to increase the scale, benefits, and future maintenance of fuels treatments. J. For. 110, 392–401 (2012).

  6. 6.

    California Forest Carbon Plan: Managing our Forest Landscapes in a Changing Climate (Forest Climate Action Team, 2018).

  7. 7.

    Boisramé, G., Thompson, S., Collins, B. & Stephens, S. Managed wildfire effects on forest resilience and water in the Sierra Nevada. Ecosystems 20, 717–732 (2017).

  8. 8.

    Quinn-Davidson, L. N. & Varner, J. M. Impediments to prescribed fire across agency, landscape and manager: an example from northern California. Int. J. Wildland Fire 21, 210–218 (2011).

  9. 9.

    Syphard, A. D., Scheller, R. M., Ward, B. C., Spencer, W. D. & Strittholt, J. R. Simulating landscape-scale effects of fuels treatments in the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Int. J. Wildland Fire 20, 364–383 (2011).

  10. 10.

    Prichard, S. J., Peterson, D. L. & Jacobson, K. Fuel treatments reduce the severity of wildfire effects in dry mixed conifer forest, Washington, USA. Can. J. Res. 40, 1615–1626 (2010).

  11. 11.

    Kobziar, L. N., McBride, J. R. & Stephens, S. L. The efficacy of fire and fuels reduction treatments in a Sierra Nevada pine plantation. Int. J. Wildland Fire 18, 791–801 (2009).

  12. 12.

    North, M. et al. Constraints on mechanized treatment significantly limit mechanical fuels reduction extent in the Sierra Nevada. J. For. 113, 40–48 (2014).

  13. 13.

    Stephens, S. L. et al. The effects of forest fuel-reduction treatments in the United States. BioScience 62, 549–560 (2012).

  14. 14.

    Cochrane, M. A. et al. Estimation of wildfire size and risk changes due to fuels treatments. Int. J. Wildland Fire 21, 357–367 (2012).

  15. 15.

    Safford, H. D., Stevens, J. T., Merriam, K., Meyer, M. D. & Latimer, A. M. Fuel treatment effectiveness in California yellow pine and mixed conifer forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 274, 17–28 (2012).

  16. 16.

    Fernandes, P. M. & Botelho, H. S. A review of prescribed burning effectiveness in fire hazard reduction. Int. J. Wildland Fire 12, 117–128 (2003).

  17. 17.

    Prescribed Fire Information Reporting System Data Set (California Air Resources Board, 2019);

  18. 18.

    Bill Information Data Set (California Legislative Information, 2019);

  19. 19.

    Toman, E., Shindler, B., McCaffrey, S. & Bennett, J. Public acceptance of wildland fire and fuel management: panel responses in seven locations. Environ. Manag. 54, 557–570 (2014).

  20. 20.

    McCaffrey, S. M. & Olsen, C. S. Research Perspectives on the Public and Fire Management: A Synthesis of Current Social Science on Eight Essential Questions JFSP Synthesis Reports 17 (Univ. Nebraska-Lincoln, 2012);

  21. 21.

    Weisshaupt, B. R., Carroll, M. S., Blatner, K. A., Robinson, W. D. & Jakes, P. J. Acceptability of smoke from prescribed forest burning in the northern inland west: A focus group approach. J. For. 103, 189–193 (2005).

  22. 22.

    Morton, L. W., Regen, E., Engle, D. M., Miller, J. R. & Harr, R. N. Perceptions of landowners concerning conservation, grazing, fire, and eastern red cedar management in tallgrass prairie. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 63, 645–654 (2010).

  23. 23.

    Toman, E., Stidham, M., Shindler, B. & McCaffrey, S. Reducing fuels in the wildland–urban interface: community perceptions of agency fuels treatments. Int. J. Wildland Fire 20, 340–349 (2011).

  24. 24.

    Stephens, S. L. et al. Drought, tree mortality, and wildfire in forests adapted to frequent fire. BioScience 68, 77–88 (2018).

  25. 25.

    Lalonde, S. J. et al. Forest management in the Sierra Nevada provides limited carbon storage potential: an expert elicitation. Ecosphere 9, e02321 (2018).

  26. 26.

    Jackson, H. B. SB-1260 Fire Prevention and Protection: Prescribed Burns (2018).

  27. 27.

    Executive Department, State of California. Executive Order B-52-18 (2018).

  28. 28.

    US Forest Service. Memorandum of Understanding for the Purpose of Increasing the Use of Fire to Meet Ecological and Other Management Objectives (2015).

  29. 29.

    Engel, K. H. Perverse incentives: the case of wildfire smoke regulation. Ecol. Law Q. 40, 623–672 (2013).

  30. 30.

    Pralle, S. B. Agenda-setting and climate change. Env. Polit. 8, 781–799 (2009).

  31. 31.

    Birkland, T. A. & Warnement, M. K. in Decision-Making under Ambiguity and Time Constraints: Assessing the Multiple-Streams Framework (eds Zohlnhöfer, R. & Rüb, F. W.) Ch. 6 (ECPR Press, 2016).

  32. 32.

    Stephens, S. L., Collins, B. M., Biber, E. & Fulé, P. Z. U.S. federal fire and forest policy: emphasizing resilience in dry forests. Ecosphere 7, 1–19 (2016).

  33. 33.

    North, M. P. et al. Reform forest fire management. Science 349, 1280–1281 (2015).

  34. 34.

    Schultz, C. et al. Prescribed Fire Policy Barriers and Opportunities: A Diversity of Challenges and Strategies Across the West Ecosystem Workforce Program Working Paper No. 86 (Univ. Oregon, 2018).

  35. 35.

    Everett, Y. & Fullet, M. Fire safe councils in the interface. Soc. Nat. Resour. 24, 319–333 (2011).

  36. 36.

    Toledo, D., Kreuter, U. P., Sorice, M. G. & Taylor, C. A. Jr. To burn or not to burn: ecological restoration, liability concerns, and the role of prescribed burning associations. Rangelands 34, 18–23 (2012).

  37. 37.

    van Wilgen, B. W., Forsyth, G. G. & Prins, P. The management of fire-adapted ecosystems in an urban setting: the case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa. Ecol. Soc. 17, 8 (2012).

  38. 38.

    van Wilgen, B. W., Forsyth, G. G., de Klerk, H., Das, S. & Khuluse, S. Fire management in Mediterranean-climate shrublands: a case study from the Cape fynbos, South Africa. J. Appl Ecol. 47, 631–638 (2010).

  39. 39.

    Fernandes, P. M. et al. Prescribed burning in southern Europe: developing fire management in a dynamic landscape. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, e4–e14 (2013).

  40. 40.

    Ascoli, D. & Bovio, G. Prescribed burning in Italy: issues, advances and challenges. IFOREST 6, 79–89 (2013).

  41. 41.

    Burrows, N. & McCaw, L. Prescribed burning in southwestern Australian forests. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, e25–e34 (2013).

  42. 42.

    McCaw, W. L. Managing forest fuels using prescribed fire—a perspective from southern Australia. For. Ecol. Manag. 294, 217–224 (2013).

  43. 43.

    Calkin, D. E., Cohen, J. D., Finney, M. A. & Thompson, M. P. How risk management can prevent future wildfire disasters in the wildland-urban interface. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 746–751 (2014).

  44. 44.

    Little Hoover Commission. Fire on the Mountain: Rethinking Forest Management in the Sierra Nevada (2018).

  45. 45.

    Kolden, C. A. & Brown, T. J. Beyond wildfire: perspectives of climate, managed fire and policy in the USA. Int. J. Wildland Fire 19, 364–373 (2010).

  46. 46.

    State of California. Public Resources Code Section 4422 (2019).

  47. 47.

    Finney, M. A. et al. Simulation of long-term landscape-level fuel treatment effects on large wildfires. Int. J. Wildland Fire 16, 712–727 (2007).

  48. 48.

    National Interagency Fire Center. Statistics (2018).

Download references


B. Cain and L. Ortolano provided feedback on a draft version of the manuscript. This work has been funded by an E-IPER Summer Research Grant and a McGee Research Grant.

Author information

R.K.M., C.B.F. and K.J.M. conceived and designed the research. R.K.M. conducted interviews and analysed the data. R.K.M., C.B.F. and K.J.M. contributed to results and discussion. R.K.M. wrote the paper. C.B.F. and K.J.M. provided comments.

Correspondence to Rebecca K. Miller.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Fig. 1, Tables 1–5, notes and references.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miller, R.K., Field, C.B. & Mach, K.J. Barriers and enablers for prescribed burns for wildfire management in California. Nat Sustain 3, 101–109 (2020).

Download citation