Friday Flash - Comparing the costs of an operational prescribed burning program to those of unplanned wildfires
JFSP Project ID: 19-1-01-40
Researchers: Sadia Afrin and Fernando Garcia Menendez (North Carolina State University)
Wildland fire, wildfire and prescribed burning, plays important roles in the ecosystems of Southeastern United States. Wildfires and related smoke can damage property and human health. In contrast, prescribed fire can reduce the occurrence, size, and severity of uncontrolled wildfires and is a commonly practiced land management strategy. However, prescribed fire is also a significant source of air pollutants. Although several studies have separately explored specific impacts of prescribed fire and wildfire on air pollution, assessments analyzing the trade-offs between the costs of prescribed burning and avoided impacts of wildfire are needed to support effective fire management approaches. In this project, an analysis was conducted to compare the air quality externalities of wildfire and prescribed fire smoke pollution. The researchers developed an approach to examine the smoke impacts of prescribed burning and the wildfire air pollution avoided with prescribed fire treatment by simulating historical and hypothetical wildland fire scenarios with an emissions and air quality modeling framework. Fires occurring on North Carolina State Parks were used a case study for the analysis. The study finds that although prescribed fires can affect air quality, their air quality benefits can be higher than their air pollution impacts. In the case study, the population benefiting from reduced wildfire air pollution is significantly larger than the population that would be affected by prescribed fire smoke. Still, neighboring communities may experience lower smoke concentrations on additional days due to prescribed fire treatment.