Adapting to Climate Change: A Comparative Analysis of Prescribed Burning and Mechanical Treatment for Forest Fire Management

CLICK HERE FOR REPORT SUMMARY

Although fuel management strategies are widely used to mitigate the scale and severity of wildfires, systematic evaluations of their eKectiveness and potential drawbacks in the context of climate change remain limited. This paper employed systematic literature review and comparative analysis methods to examine the performance of prescribed burning and mechanical treatment in managing fire risks and adapting to climate change. The study focused on their impacts on fire behavior, implementation challenges under climate constraints, and carbon emissions, while also exploring costs, environmental impacts, and social acceptance. Two representative case study sites - California, USA, and Southeast Australia - were chosen for longitudinal comparisons under varying environmental conditions. The findings suggested that diKerent fuel management strategies each have their strengths and weaknesses. No single strategy is perfect; each involves trade-oKs. Prescribed burning eKectively alters fire behavior and has lower carbon emissions, but its implementation window is severely limited by climate change. Mechanical treatment is not a complete substitute for prescribed burning and is associated with higher carbon emissions; however, it avoids the risks of smoke and fire escape linked to fire and is more resilient to climate change. Overall, combined mechanical and burn treatment may constitute an eKective strategy. In the planning process, balancing the impacts of diKerent strategies to achieve optimal results is crucial for successful management.