Comparing risk-based fuel treatment prioritization with alternative strategies for enhancing protection and resource management objectives

Abstract Background Advances in fire modeling help quantify and map various components characterizations of wildfire risk furthermore evaluate the ability fuel treatments to mitigate risk. However, a need remains for guidance designing landscape-scale with protection objectives, resource management response mind. It is also important consider how human factors related tolerance may affect opportunities manage fire. We build on these themes illustrate an approach examining whether, how, can simultaneously minimize housing exposure while maximizing area suitable expansion beneficial wildfire. generate multiple hypothetical post-treatment conditions according distinct treatment prioritization schemes (Housing Protection, Federal Transmission, Random) variable extents compare performance across strategies 8.5 million ha case study landscape north-central New Mexico, USA. Results In general, we find that treating near units provide greatest level relative more remote wildlands reduce transmission potential. Treating federal lands was highly effective at reducing from fires expanding but contributed comparatively little all fires. as low 2.5–5% yield significant benefits spatially optimized strategies, whereas random strategy did not perform comparably until reaching much larger extent. Increasing expanded managed fire, decreasing opportunity flame length probability shrunk Conclusions This work provides contribution terms explicitly framing analysis design around land objectives adds knowledge base protect communities expand fire-prone landscape. Successful integration requires embracing pillars National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, including coordinated fuels ownerships, home ignition zone mitigation, cross-boundary planning guide operations options.