IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natsus/v7y2024i2d10.1038_s41893-023-01253-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying the smoke-related public health trade-offs of forest management

Author

Listed:
  • Claire L. Schollaert

    (University of Washington)

  • Jihoon Jung

    (University of North Carolina)

  • Joseph Wilkins

    (Howard University)

  • Ernesto Alvarado

    (University of Washington)

  • Jill Baumgartner

    (McGill University)

  • Julien Brun

    (University of California)

  • Tania Busch Isaksen

    (University of Washington)

  • Jamie M. Lydersen

    (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection)

  • Miriam E. Marlier

    (University of California)

  • Julian D. Marshall

    (University of Washington)

  • Yuta J. Masuda

    (Paul G. Allen Family Foundation)

  • Charles Maxwell

    (Spatial Informatics Group)

  • Christopher W. Tessum

    (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)

  • Kristen N. Wilson

    (The Nature Conservancy)

  • Nicholas H. Wolff

    (The Nature Conservancy)

  • June T. Spector

    (University of Washington)

Abstract

Prescribed burning can mitigate extreme wildfire risk and reduce total smoke emissions. Yet prescribed burns’ emissions may also contribute to smoke exposures in nearby communities. Incorporating public health considerations into forest management planning efforts may help reduce prescribed burn-related exposure impacts. We present a methodological framework linking landscape ecology, air-quality modelling and health impact assessment to quantify the air-quality and health impacts of specific management strategies. We apply this framework to six forest management scenarios proposed for a landscape in the Central Sierra, California. We find that moderate amounts of prescribed burning can decrease wildfire-specific PM2.5 exposures and reduce asthma-related health impacts in the surrounding region; however, the magnitude of that benefit levels off under scenarios with additional prescribed burning because of the added treatment-related smoke burdens. This framework can be applied to other fire-prone landscapes to incorporate public health considerations into forest management planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Claire L. Schollaert & Jihoon Jung & Joseph Wilkins & Ernesto Alvarado & Jill Baumgartner & Julien Brun & Tania Busch Isaksen & Jamie M. Lydersen & Miriam E. Marlier & Julian D. Marshall & Yuta J. Mas, 2024. "Quantifying the smoke-related public health trade-offs of forest management," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 7(2), pages 130-139, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:natsus:v:7:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1038_s41893-023-01253-y
    DOI: 10.1038/s41893-023-01253-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01253-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41893-023-01253-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michelle C. Kondo & Anneclaire J. De Roos & Lauren S. White & Warren E. Heilman & Miranda H. Mockrin & Carol Ann Gross-Davis & Igor Burstyn, 2019. "Meta-Analysis of Heterogeneity in the Effects of Wildfire Smoke Exposure on Respiratory Health in North America," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Benjamin A. Jones & Robert P. Berrens, 2021. "Prescribed Burns, Smoke Exposure, And Infant Health," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 292-309, April.
    3. Khulan Altangerel & Christian A. Kull, 2013. "The prescribed burning debate in Australia: conflicts and compatibilities," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(1), pages 103-120, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pullabhotla, Hemant K. & Souza, Mateus, 2022. "Air pollution from agricultural fires increases hypertension risk," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    2. Ran Du & Qiyun Fang & Ke Liu, 2023. "Landscape Fire and Entrepreneurial Activity: An Empirical Study Based on Satellite Monitoring Data," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-22, July.
    3. Mylek, Melinda R. & Schirmer, Jacki, 2020. "Understanding acceptability of fuel management to reduce wildfire risk: Informing communication through understanding complexity of thinking," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    4. Marshall Burke & Sam Heft-Neal & Jessica Li & Anne Driscoll & Patrick Baylis & Matthieu Stigler & Joakim A. Weill & Jennifer A. Burney & Jeff Wen & Marissa L. Childs & Carlos F. Gould, 2022. "Exposures and behavioural responses to wildfire smoke," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(10), pages 1351-1361, October.
    5. Yufei Zou & Susan M. O’Neill & Narasimhan K. Larkin & Ernesto C. Alvarado & Robert Solomon & Clifford Mass & Yang Liu & M. Talat Odman & Huizhong Shen, 2019. "Machine Learning-Based Integration of High-Resolution Wildfire Smoke Simulations and Observations for Regional Health Impact Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-20, June.
    6. Eckerberg, Katarina & Buizer, Marleen, 2017. "Promises and dilemmas in forest fire management decision-making: Exploring conditions for community engagement in Australia and Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 133-140.
    7. Thomas W. McDaniel & Carissa L. Wonkka & Morgan L. Treadwell & Urs P. Kreuter, 2021. "Factors Influencing County Commissioners’ Decisions about Burn Bans in the Southern Plains, USA," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natsus:v:7:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1038_s41893-023-01253-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.