Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

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. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Google Scholar 

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

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

Authors and Affiliations



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.

Corresponding author

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

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing