Open AccessResolving conflicts in fire management using decision theory: asset‐protection versus biodiversity conservation
Author(s) -
Driscoll Don A.,
Lindenmayer David B.,
Bennett Andrew F.,
Bode Michael,
Bradstock Ross A.,
Cary Geoffrey J.,
Clarke Michael F.,
Dexter Nick,
Fensham Rod,
Friend Gordon,
Gill Malcolm,
James Stuart,
Kay Geoff,
Keith David A.,
MacGregor Chris,
Possingham Hugh P.,
RusselSmith Jeremy,
Salt David,
Watson James E. M.,
Williams Dick,
York Alan
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
conservation letters
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.153
H-Index - 79
ISSN - 1755-263X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1755-263x.2010.00115.x
Subject(s) - asset (computer security) , environmental resource management , business , dilemma , biodiversity , risk analysis (engineering) , asset management , identification (biology) , biodiversity conservation , environmental planning , computer science , computer security , economics , environmental science , finance , ecology , philosophy , epistemology , biology
Agencies charged with nature conservation and protecting built‐assets from fire face a policy dilemma because management that protects assets can have adverse impacts on biodiversity. Although conservation is often a policy goal, protecting built‐assets usually takes precedence in fire management implementation. To make decisions that can better achieve both objectives, existing trade‐offs must first be recognized, and then policies implemented to manage multiple objectives explicitly. We briefly review fire management actions that can conflict with biodiversity conservation. Through this review, we find that common management practices might not appreciably reduce the threat to built‐assets but could have a large negative impact on biodiversity. We develop a framework based on decision theory that could be applied to minimize these conflicts. Critical to this approach is (1) the identification of the full range of management options and (2) obtaining data for evaluating the effectiveness of those options for achieving asset protection and conservation goals. This information can be used to compare explicitly the effectiveness of different management choices for conserving species and for protecting assets, given budget constraints. The challenge now is to gather data to quantify these trade‐offs so that fire policy and practices can be better aligned with multiple objectives.