sign in sign up
<<
Home , Stubble burning, United Kingdom

WILDFIRE IN THE : STATUS AND KEY ISSUES

Julia McMorrow sources. First, fire statistics published by the School of Environment and Development, and of Communities and Local Government Research Centre (CLG) and the MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging The University of , U.K. Spectroradiometer) active fire database are used [email protected] to demonstrate the frequency and timing of U.K. wildfires and to show deficiencies in the evidence base. Second, Risk Registers and CLG Abstract.—This paper reviews the status of wildfire reports are used to demonstrate the of awareness risk in the United Kingdom and examines some of the of wildfire risk. Finally, findings from the 2007-2009 key issues in U.K. wildfire management. Wildfires Fire and Ecosystem Services (FIRES n.d.) seminar challenge the resources of U.K. Fire and Rescue series on fire and climate change in U.K. moorland and Services (FRSs), especially in dry , yet FRSs are heaths are used to examine the relationships among poorly equipped and trained to deal with wildfire. A wildfire, prescribed burning, and ecosystem services brief geography of U.K. wildfires is presented using in moorlands and heathlands in the context of climate fire statistics from the Department of Communities change and changes in the rural . and Local Government (CLG) and the MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) 1.2 Wildfire, Moorlands, and Ecosystem active fire database. Citizens’ awareness of U.K. Services in the United Kingdom wildfires is reviewed using Community Risk Registers “Wildfire” is the term in the United Kingdom and CLG reports. Residents have little awareness for uncontrolled vegetation fires that are large by U.K. because wildfire reporting is of poor quality, severe standards. The term “wildland fire” is rarely used since wildfires occur sporadically, they do not result in loss the United Kingdom has few wildlands in the North of , and “property” is defined narrowly so that American sense of the word. Most U.K. land is not far environmental assets are not adequately considered. from settlements. In addition, this paper examines how government policy on management in moorlands does Moorlands (Fig. 1) are arguably the United Kingdom’s not adequately wildfire risk management. closest equivalent to wildlands. Moorlands are open Moorland managers express fear that conservation landscapes of dwarf shrubs, notably heather (especially restrictions, especially on prescribed burning, are Calluna vulgaris), cotton grass (Eriophorum increasing fuel loads and hence the risk of severe vaginatum), and acid grasslands. The United Kingdom wildfire. In the United Kingdom, management contains most of the ’s remaining heather, which for multiple land uses requires wildfire-aware is protected under (E.U.) Biodiversity management of ecosystem services and ecosystem Action Plans. Much of the moorland in the north and -aware management of wildfire. west of the United Kingdom is blanket on deep peat. This moorland is the U.K.’s most important carbon store, containing the equivalent of 20 years of

1.0 INTRODUCTION its CO2 emissions ( and Evans 2009).

1.1 Aims and Data Sources It is important to recognize that even remote moorlands are only semi-natural ecosystems, altered To review the status of wildfire risk in the United by centuries of burning and grazing (Davies et al. Kingdom and examine some key issues in U.K. 2008). Many of the largest wildfires in the United wildfire management, this paper draws on three

Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire GTR-NRS-P-84 44 Kingdom occur in moorlands because bird, red grouse (Lagopus lagopus scotica) (Fig. 1). have trouble reaching them and because peat fires Like heather moorland, lowland is another are especially dangerous and inherently difficult to fire-adapted ecosystem where severe wildfires control. are a problem. Heather and gorse are fire-adapted ecosystems because fire assists regeneration by, for An ecosystem services approach has been adopted instance, encouraging seed germination and preventing as a unifying framework by government agencies succession to scrubland (Davies et al. 2008). Lowland managing the countryside (Defra 2007b). heath, made up of heather and gorse on sandy soils, Moorlands are important for a range of ecosystem is found in such areas as , the southwest of services ( et al. 2009). Supporting services , and East Anglia. These are important habitats include biodiversity and nutrient cycling, both of for rare species such as the ladybird spider (Eresus which depend on maintaining the peat substrate. cinnaberinus) and the warbler (Sylvia Provisioning services include timber, from undata). , and from grazing animals and . , carbon cycle regulation, and flood protection The 14 National in Great (England, are examples of regulating services. Cultural services , and , excluding Northern ) are include game-shooting and informal recreation. not in public ownership (Quinn et al. 2010). They are cultural landscapes where live, work, and go Heather moorland is a fire-adapted ecosystem for recreation; management for multiple land uses is maintained by rotational prescribed burning for the norm (Bonn et al. 2009). Wildfire management habitat management, especially for that of the game in the National Parks and other moorland habitat

Figure 1.—Prescribed burning for grouse moor management, North Pennine moors, England.

Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire GTR-NRS-P-84 45 areas faces the challenge of being superimposed on one in . Each is governed and funded a framework of complex land ownership and diverse by a Fire Authority. The United Kingdom has no land uses. agency with specific responsibility to manage wildfire. Instead, wildfire management falls within the scope of Wildfires also occur in peri-urban grasslands and many agencies, and statutory responsibility rests with agricultural land, even though is FRSs under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 banned. One problem in analyzing U.K. wildfire (or its equivalent for the devolved administrations of data is that pre-2009 CLG figures lumped everything Scotland and Northern Ireland). from small grassland fires and intentional stubble burning to moorland, heathland, and forest fires FRSs do not have separate forces for fighting fires into one class—referred to hereafter by the normal in wildlands as opposed to structures and equipment CLG shorthand of “grassland fires”. and training favor preparation for structural fires. This bias reflects the partial funding of Fire Authorities 2.0 A Brief Geography from local taxation, the majority of which comes of U.K. Wildfires from urban areas. Even though three-quarters of the fires attended by FRSs between 1995 and 2007 were outdoor fires and 38 percent of these were “grassland 2.1 Does the United Kingdom have Wildfires? fires,” FRSs are primarily equipped and trained to deal with structural fires in urban settings. Few have access The United Kingdom has a temperate climate that to all-terrain vehicles or wildland fighting equipment. is not usually associated with wildfire, yet wildfires Partnerships between rural land managers and agencies occur annually. Severe fires by U.K. standards can within a local fire group are helping to overcome this occur in any but became a significant hazard in limitation. drought years such as 1976, 1995, and 2003. One peat fire in the Peak (Fig. 2) in 2003 burned The United Kingdom has a fire-averse attitude to 3 square miles of moorland, including areas under wildfire, regardless of intensity and duration. In this statutory conservation protection. Smoke closed major respect, U.K. policy is similar to the ’ roads and disrupted air at ; pre-1971 no-burn policy and “fire out by 10 a.m.” £2 million was ultimately required for restoration. objective (U.S. Fire Administration 2001). For the Another Peak District fire in July 2006 required safety of fire ground personnel, however, fires are 30 days of firefighting at a cost to taxpayers of not normally fought at night in the United Kingdom. approximately £1 million. A wildfire on the North Zero-tolerance of wildfires is not surprising in a small Moors in 2010 resulted in the evacuation of with a high and a history than 250 people from a campsite. Although these fires of multiple land uses. Much of England, especially did not cause fatalities and are not on the same scale in the southeast, is the equivalent of a wildland- as those that occur in , , or the urban interface. The Local Authority-based planning Mediterranean , they had negative impacts on system regulates where houses are built, but wildfire ecosystem services in the term, and represented risk is not normally a factor in housing decisions. a significant challenge to Fire and Rescue Services Dorset (Fig. 2) is an exception because gorse fires (FRS) resource resilience and service delivery. on heaths are a significant problem. No building is allowed within 0.25 miles of Natura heaths (an E.U. 2.2 Wildfire as a Challenge to FRS conservation designation). A mitigation fee of £1719 Resilience is charged for permission to build a house within 0.25 Fire suppression is organized regionally in the United to 3 miles of Natura heaths, and this fee an Kingdom and is free at the point of delivery. There are innovative wildfire management program as part of the 43 FRSs in , six in Scotland, and

Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire GTR-NRS-P-84 46 Figure 2.—MODIS Hotspot/Active Fire Detections for the U.K., excluding , 1 Jan 2003 – 29 2010. Green shading represents National Parks and other protected areas (NASA/University of Maryland 2002). Locations referred to in text: 1, ; 2, North York Moors; 3, ; 4, Peak District; 5, Wales; 6, Dorset; 7, .

Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire GTR-NRS-P-84 47 Dorset Urban Heaths LIFE Project (Dorset Fire and Forum and the England and Wales Wildfire Forum. Rescue Service n.d.). Another is the rapidly growing local fire group movement, pioneered by the Peak District National FRS resilience is challenged by the number and timing Fire Operations Group, where FRSs work of smaller wildfires. When resources are deployed in alongside agencies and landowners from the rural fighting wildfires, especially in remote moorlands, sector to share equipment and training, and develop they are not available for urban incidents. Between burning plans together. There are now at least six 1995 and 2007, FRSs responded to an average of such local fire groups in the United Kingdom, and the 84,000 “grassland fires” per year (CLG 2008a). These partnership approach is considered an effective way to “grassland fires” represented 20 percent of all outdoor manage wildfire (FIRES n.d., Aylen 2009). fires and 17 percent of all attended fires. In the drought year of 2003, almost 153,000 grassland fires occurred 2.3 Causes of Wildfires across the United Kingdom, representing 30 percent U.K. wildfires may be caused by arson, escaped of all outdoor fires and 25 percent of all attended prescribed burns, discarded , and barbecues, fires that year. The incidence of grassland fires was and by sparks from power lines, vehicles, or ordnance concentrated in key months; in April 2003, there were in military training areas. However, reliable evidence more than 1,000 grassland fires a day, compared with on causes is sparse, fire causes are rarely confirmed by 40 per day in . Climate change is likely to lead forensic investigation, and very few prosecutions are to longer, drier with larger, more frequent brought for arson. This situation is unlikely to change fires (Albertson et al. 2009, CLG 2006). This expected until the interpretation of property extends beyond change will increase the costs of providing fire cover, structures to include all environmental assets and until shift focus from response to prevention, and increase these assets can be adequately valued. The online Met demand for better risk assessment tools (CLG 2008c). Office Fire Severity Index (MOFSI) acknowledges the role of human ignition sources. It expresses the FRSs are required to define risks to communities risk of severe fire on a 10-km grid and triggers closure within their Integrated Risk Management Plans (CLG of Access Land (land over which statutory right-to- 2008b), but many have failed to recognize wildfire as a roam has been negotiated with landowners under the risk. A recent , however, suggests that Category Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2004) although 1 and 2 responders recognize the need to improve public rights-of-way remain open. MOFSI also wildfire risk assessments (CLG 2008c). Among the acknowledges the conflict between wildfire regulation reasons cited for improved wildfire risk assessments and recreation and agricultural land use. are: a perception that more remote locations need better protection because personnel and vehicles 2.4 Implications of the Sporadic Timing currently have difficulty arriving in time to put out of Wildfires fires; recognition that wildfires can have a significant The United Kingdom normally has two fire seasons: economic impact on farming and on transportation (March to April) and (July to when roads are closed; and concern about ). However, only one fire may safety. One senior FRS stated: “Wildfire is, and occur, or both may be minimal in a wet year. The will remain, a national problem until the majority of number of grassland fires inversely mirrors the mean fire services with a wildfire risk recognize that they annual rainfall trend (Fig. 3). The sporadic occurrence may not have appropriate skills, knowledge or tactical of wildfires creates vulnerability in three ways. ability… required to effectively manage this type of First, it stretches resources in dry months. Second, incident” (Hedley 2010, p. 34). preparedness may be low when a severe fire does occur since most firefighters will not have experienced One response has been the formation of two a major wildfire and it is difficult for FRSs to maintain stakeholder advocacy groups, the Scottish Wildfire

Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire GTR-NRS-P-84 48 200 1400

) G rassland, s 180 heathland, straw , d

1200 ) n and stubble fires m a 160 s m ( u 1000 l

o 140 l

h Building + chim ney a t f (

120 n fires i

s 800 a e r r i 100 l f a d 600 u e 80 n M ean annual d n n a rainfall from 1914

e 60 t

400 n

t (m m ), England and a a e - 40 W ales S 200 M R

F 20 0 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Figure 3.—Primary and secondary grassland and other outdoor fires in the U.K., 1995 - 2007. Fire data: CLG (2008a). Rainfall data: Met Office (online).

alertness and investment in wildfire fighting resources confirmed until spatially robust national statistics are in wet years. Third, wet years allow fuel buildup, a available. potentially significant problem that must be considered within the context of the polarized attitudes to 3.0 Poor Evidence Base prescribed burning on heather moorlands and changes Poor reporting of U.K. wildfires means that little in the rural economy (see section 5.0 below). Unlike is known about their relative severity, such as in the United States, most FRSs and government burned or assets affected. Data on attended fires are agencies in the United Kingdom have yet to recognize collected locally by individual FRSs, and official the potential consequences of over-suppression and the summary statistics and reports are sent to CLG need for fuel management. from the FRS in whose a fire occurs. Inconsistency in reporting between FRSs and a 2.5 MODIS-detected Fires generally poor reporting standard for vegetation fires fire databases provide insight into the make it difficult to analyze habitat type, cause, and geography of the largest U.K. wildfires. The majority location. of MODIS-detected active fires (57 percent) from 2006 to 2010 were on scrub, There is also inconsistency in the category assigned herbaceous moors, and heathland; only 5 percent (stubble, grass, moorland, etc.), suspected cause, were on forest land. MODIS data generally include and accuracy of geocoded location. A study of some false positives, but many more fires are omitted data for attended fires from three brigades covering because MODIS captures only the largest fires at the the South Pennine moorlands showed that FRS-level time of the twice-daily overpass and under clear sky statistics were thematically and spatially biased. The conditions (National Air and Space Administration/ location recorded was for the callout or fire appliance University of Maryland 2002). Figure 2 shows clusters and not the fire ground, thus limiting meaningful of putative moorland fires in Scotland, the North York geographic information system analysis of fire location Moors, Pennine moorlands, and southwest England. (Walker et al. 2009). The cluster in is thought to be grassland fires caused by arson. Wildfire regimes are believed Data inconsistency is not surprising given the largely to vary regionally, but this hypothesis cannot be low wildfire awareness and fragmentation of data

Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire GTR-NRS-P-84 49 collection. This is a particular problem for a moorland Office 2010). The four-step process for creating risk area like the Peak District , which assessments is: (1) identifying local risks, which is covered by six FRSs. Fortunately, partnership for wildfire would include wildfires severe by U.K. in the local fire group provides a good standards: a forest or moorland fire affecting up to 50 alternative database for spatial analysis of fire risk hectares, requiring evacuation of up to 100 residential (McMorrow et al. 2009). or business properties and with up to 5 fatalities and 20 casualties; (2) estimating likelihood of occurrence over A two-tiered system of reporting was used for all U.K. the next 5 years and assigning the risk to one of five wildfires until April 2009. The majority of wildfires probability classes; (3) assessing impacts on and were classified as Secondary rather than Primary fires, economic, social, and environmental assets; and (4) so they were reported to a lower standard. Secondary rating and prioritizing risks. fires were those that involved no casualties, rescue, or property loss and that were attended by fewer than 4.1 Survey of CRRs five appliances (CLG 2008a). The new Web-enabled We carried out a survey of 49 CRRs in England, Incident Recording System (IRS) uses a consistent Wales, and Scotland between March and June 2010. standard of reporting for all fires (CLG 2009). This Thirty-six of the 49 CRRs (73 percent) included forest approach should improve consistency between FRSs or moorland fire. Wildfire likelihood was plotted and provide fuller information on wildfires, including against impact in the standard risk (Fig. 4). broad habitat type and area burned. It is being The modal wildfire risk rating across all 49 CRRs was implemented locally, however, so concerns remain medium (20, 41 percent), with 14 (29 percent) rating about consistency and data quality. Geolocation is still it as low, 2 (4 percent) as high, none as very high, and restricted to a point instead of a polygon of the burned 13 (27 percent) not even including it (percentages area, but more accurate spatial reporting and analysis are rounded to the nearest integer so they do not will be . sum to 100 percent). Despite this recognition at the local level, wildfire is not yet included in the public Poor reporting to the European Union and the United version of the U.K. National Risk Register of civil Nations further contributes to low international emergencies. awareness of U.K. wildfires. The United Kingdom is a member of the European Forest Fire Information In most CRRs, likelihood of wildfire was rated System (EFFIS) but no longer sends data to the medium-low (1 in 2,000 over 5 years). Risk European Fire database (European Forest Fire of a moderate fire was rated high (1 in 2) in Information System n.d.). Northumberland, South Wales, and Cumbria, which clusters of MODIS-detected fires 4.0 National Awareness of (Fig. 2). Likelihood may be underestimated because Wildfire in Community Risk the recurrence interval of events of this magnitude is Registers probably longer than the 5-year span being considered, Awareness of wildfire risk in emergency planning is so recent experience and awareness would be low. The low at the national level but higher at the regional poor historic evidence base also hinders assessment. level. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (CCA) Arguably, low likelihood increases vulnerability in requires that Local Resilience Forums (LRF) the long term, because preparedness may be low and consisting of emergency and other services work the potential for fuel accumulation may be high. The together to assess risks to and put necessary matrix does not recognize the inverse long-term causal contingency arrangements in place. LRF risk relationship between likelihood and impact, and the assessments must be published and maintained online 5-year political cycle does not encourage long-term as Community Risk Registers (CRRs) ( thinking.

Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire GTR-NRS-P-84 50 Figure 4.—Community Risk Register (CRR) ratings for likelihood and impact of forest and moorland fire in (England, Wales, and Scotland) for 2010. Circles proportional to number of CRR entries, N = 49. Maximum impact and likelihood score used where there was more than one entry per CRR.

Most CRRs rated potential wildfire impact as minor About 42 percent of England, Wales, and Scotland (47 percent) or excluded it (28 percent). Fatalities from was estimated to have vegetation that is combustible wildfires are rare and directly attributable impacts on at certain times of the year. Bog nonetheless was health are difficult to prove. Anecdotally, most minor not regarded as combustible (ENTEC 2000), so injuries to firefighters occur in moorland fire fighting a reassessment is required. Carbon storage and because personal protective equipment and other sequestration may become a significant asset in the equipment are designed for fighting structural fires, not future (Hurteau et al. 2009), especially for moorlands, for outdoor incidents in inaccessible areas. Damage where fires can burn into the peat and cause net loss to structural property is low relative to environmental of investment in peatland restoration (Anderson et al. assets such as clean water or aesthetic value, which 2009). are notoriously difficult to value. Values of £450 per hectare (approx $294/acre) have been assigned for 5.0 Prescribed Burning moorlands with sporting (shooting) interest and £40 in the United Kingdom per hectare (approx $26/acre) for other moorland Some land management agencies and stakeholders (ENTEC 2000). Forestry assets were assigned a value disagree about the use of prescribed burning for between £2000 (approx $1,308/acre) and £8000 per moorland habitat management, which may in turn hectare (approx $5,235/acre). affect wildfire risk. There are also strong and polarized opinions about whether the target habitat should

Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire GTR-NRS-P-84 51 be heather moorland, which was largely created on ecosystem services (Hubacek et al. 2010). There are shooting estates by the Victorians in the late 19th between this situation and the controversy century, or older, more mixed habitats (Davies et al. in Yellowstone National Park (located in parts of 2008). Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho) described by McBeth et al. (2005). In Yellowstone, “Old West” groups The land management community, represented by seeking to maximize economic returns with a focus organizations such as the Moorland Association, Game on resource extraction and utilization have given way and Conservation Trust, and the Heather to biocentric “New West” groups that place a higher Trust, uses prescribed burning as a vital tool in grouse priority on conservation and recreation. moor management. Strips of heather 100- to 80-feet wide are burned on a 20-year rotation to encourage From a wildfire risk perspective, restrictions on habitat new shoots of heather on which grouse feed. Older management burning and grazing should require stands provide cover for the grouse. The long-term that an alternative form of fuel ecological response is a patchwork of different ages of is included in management plans to reduce the risk heather. Grouse game-shooting generates jobs, direct of severe wildfire. However, government policy on income (~£1500 per gun per day), and indirect income habitat management in moorlands has yet to take into by maintaining a cultural landscape valued by visitors. account the management of wildfire risk. Land managers also argue that this practice reduces wildfire risk by controlling fuel load. Burning is regulated through a voluntary Heather and Grass Burning Code and statutory regulations (Defra conservation groups have different habitat 2007a). It is limited spatially and temporally to a legal management objectives. The Department for winter burn season, and burning plans are required. Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Natural Land managers at the 2007-2009 FIRES seminar England (the statutory body for nature conservation in series on fire and climate change in U.K. moorland and England), and nongovernmental organizations such as heaths expressed concern that restrictions on burning the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds seek to and lower sheep densities required by restrict burning on deep peat. Suppression burning to management agreements are allowing fuel loads to control a wildfire is also not allowed in areas protected become dangerously high, increasing the risk of severe by . The aim of burning restrictions is to protect wildfire. This risk is compounded by a shortage of nesting birds and habitat biodiversity and to reduce skilled labor and an expected increase in wildfire the likelihood that escaped management burns will risk caused by climate change. Martínez et al. (2009) become peat fires. report that these factors have already contributed to an increased wildfire incidence on abandoned land in It is widely understood that fire can help maintain Mediterranean countries. heather moorland and heath, but land management agencies must operate under legally binding Public The frequency of MODIS-detected fires on moors Service Agreements to maintain in “favorable and heathlands peaks at the end of the burn season. condition” and they are subject to E.U. legislation on The time limit may inadvertently be encouraging biodiversity and water quality. The target ecosystem more risky behavior as land managers try to complete is normally mixed wet blanket bog, including some their burning by the end of the legal season. More heather. Private land managers are paid subsidies research and analysis are needed to examine the under agri-environment schemes to manage spatial relationships between prescribed burning and protected land in accordance with stated goals. This wildfire; for instance, are fewer or more wildfires type of subsidy marks a shift from conventional found where there is prescribed burning? How production subsidies for providing ecosystem many prescribed burns become wildfires? The services to prioritization of supporting and regulating International Union for Conservation of Nature will

Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire GTR-NRS-P-84 52 soon publish (International Union for Conservation mentality that contributed to the U.S. wildfire policy of Nature n.d.) a literature review and stakeholder error of over-suppression (Busenberg 2004). consultation on burning in peatlands. When managers assess ecological response, they need to consider the 7.0 Conclusion combined wildfire and prescribed burning fire regime, The United Kingdom has a significant wildfire including factors such as temperature, duration, problem in drought years. Awareness of the risk is timing, and frequency. But a more fundamental low at the international and national levels but higher question remains about what that desired ecological at the local level. Three issues have been identified response should be: Which ecosystem service(s) as contributing factors: a poor evidence base; the should have priority? sporadic nature of wildfires relative to the 5-year political cycle; and a narrow definition of property, 6.0 The Case for Wildfire which excludes damage to the less easily evaluated Regulation as an Ecosystem supporting, regulating, and cultural ecosystem Service services. Other key messages, knowledge gaps, and Wildfire regulation is not currently recognized or policy recommendations are summarized in the FIRES prioritized as an ecosystem service. Until recently, policy brief (FIRES n.d,). few agencies and FRSs saw the need for wildfire management. Tensions between burning on deep peat The three factors are related; severe wildfires are and nature conservation have already been highlighted. infrequent and do little damage to structural property, But there are also potential conflicts and synergies so improving the evidence base and conducting with management for other ecosystem services such comprehensive costing studies are not priorities. as carbon storage (Hurteau et al. 2009). Giving higher But without evidence we cannot demonstrate priority to certain ecosystem services can inadvertently the problem—a Catch-22 situation. The Incident exacerbate wildfire risk. For instance, £2 million has Recording System and satellite databases can begin to already been invested in the Peak District to restore provide some of the evidence required and contribute eroded peatlands damaged by previous wildfires, and to improved wildfire risk assessment tools. an additional £3 million has been allocated for this purpose (Anderson et al. 2009). Restoring degraded So far, the link between the likelihood and impact dry bog to wet blanket bog by reseeding and rewetting of wildfires is poorly appreciated, both in terms should produce a more wildfire-resistant ecosystem, of biophysical hazard and FRS preparedness. but the investment is at risk if fuel load management Government agencies recognize the need to control such as grazing or cutting and removal is not included human ignition sources, but not the need for fuel in the longer term. management. The alleged fuel load accumulation in fire-adapted heather moorlands requires investigation. In a multiple land-use situation like the United So too do spatial relationships between prescribed Kingdom, wildfire-aware management of ecosystem burning and wildfire. Peer-reviewed studies of wider services is required. Equally importantly, ecosystem economic costs are needed. Concern about fire service-aware management of wildfire is needed. fighter safety is growing, and calls are increasing for Wildfire regulation is an ecosystem service equivalent specialized training and equipment. Many of these to flood protection; if not managed properly, wildfire practical concerns are being addressed by grassroots can become an ecosystem disservice. The challenge action—by collaborative work among partnerships in is to superimpose a crosscutting issue such as wildfire local fire groups and through the two wildfire forums. regulation onto existing institutional structures and Regrettably, FRS officers express fear that wildfire property rights (Quinn et al. 2010). Decisionmakers will not move up on the political agenda until a fatality must try to avoid the bounded rationality and silo occurs.

Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire GTR-NRS-P-84 53 8.0 Acknowledgments CLG. 2006. Effects of climate change on fire and The author would like to thank all those who rescue services in the UK. : Communities contributed information and advice, including: Anita and Local Government. 34 p. Available: http:// Karunasaagarar; FIRES seminar series participants; www.communities.gov.uk/publications/fire/ Economic and Social Research Council, Natural effectsclimate (Accessed July 23, 2010). Environment Research Council, and other sponsors CLG. 2008a. Fire statistics United Kingdom 2007. of the FIRES series; Peak District National Park Fire London: Communities and Local Government. Operations Group; England and Wales Wildfire Forum; 45 p. Available: http://www.communities. Andy Elliott, Dorset Urban Heath LIFE Project; and gov.uk/fire/researchandstatistics/firestatistics/ the internal referees. The views expressed do not firestatisticsuk/ (Accessed July 22, 2010). necessarily reflect those of these organizations. CLG. 2008b. IRMP steering group integrated risk management planning: Policy guidance 9.0 Literature Cited – wildfire. London: Communities and Local Albertson, K.; Aylen, .; Cavan, G.; McMorrow, J. Government. 45 p. 2009. Forecasting the outbreak of moorland wildfires in the English Peak District. Journal of CLG. 2008c. Risk assessment tools for Civil Environmental Management. 90(8): 2642-2651. Contingencies Act & IRMP. London: Communities and Local Government. 45 p. Anderson, P.; Buckler, M.; Walker, J. 2009. Moorland Available: http://www.communities.gov.uk/ restoration: Potential and progress. In: Bonn, publications/fire/riskassessmenttools (Accessed A.; Allott, T.; Hubacek, K.; Stewart, J., eds. July 20, 2010). Drivers of change in upland environments. Abingdon, UK: Routledge: 432-447. CLG. 2009. Incident recording system. London: Communities and Local Government. 128 p. Aylen, J. 2009. Emergent in public Available: http://www.communities.gov.uk/ service - lessons from fighting wildfires. Public publications/fire/incidentrecordingquestions Money and Management. 29(4): 207-208. (Accessed July 26, 2010).

Bonn, A.; Rebane. M.; Reid, C. 2009. Ecosystem Davies, G.M.; Gray, A.; Hamilton, A.; Legg, C. 2008. services: A new rationale for conservation of The future of fire management in the British upland environments. In: Bonn, A.; Allott, T.; . International Journal of Biodiversity Hubacek, K.; Stewart, J., eds. Drivers of change in Science and Management. 4(3): 127-147. upland Environments. Abingdon, UK: Routledge: 448-474. Defra. 2007a. The heather and grass burning code. London: Department for Environment, Food and Busenberg, G. 2004. Wildfire management in United Rural Affairs. 28 p. Available: http://www.Defra. States: The of a policy failure. Review gov.uk/foodfarm/landmanage/land-soil/heather. of Policy Research. 21:145-156. htm (Accessed July 30, 2010).

Cabinet Office. 2010.UK resilience, risk assessment. Defra. 2007b. An introductory guide to valuing Available: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ ecosystem services. London: Department for ukresilience/preparedness/risk.aspx (Accessed July Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 68 p. 24, 2010). Available: http://www.Defra.gov.uk/environment/ policy/natural-environ/documents/eco-valuing.pdf (Accessed July 26, 2010).

Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire GTR-NRS-P-84 54 Dorset Fire and Rescue Service. n.d. Urban heaths Martínez, J.; -García, C.; Chuvíeco, E. 2009. life project. Available: http://www.dorsetfire. Human caused wildfire risk rating for co.uk/index.php?ref=184 (Accessed July 26, prevention planning in . Journal of 2010). Environmental Management. 90: 1241-1252.

ENTEC. 2000. Home Office.Further development McBeth, M.K.; Shanahan, E.A.; Jones, M.D. 2005. of risk assessment toolkits for the UK Fire The science of storytelling: Measuring policy Service technical note – risk rating system for beliefs in Greater Yellowstone. Society and vegetation, large heathland and fires. Natural Resources. 18(5): 413-429. Report for Home Office. London: ENTEC UK McMorrow, J.M.; Lindley, S.J.; Aylen, J.; Cavan, G.; Ltd. 30 p. Albertson, K.; Boys, D. 2009. Moorland wildfire European Forest Fire Information System [EFFIS]. risk, visitors and climate change: patterns, n.d. European Fire database. Available: http:// prevention and policy. In: Bonn, A.; Allott, T.; effis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about/technical-background/ Hubacek, K.; Stewart, J., eds. Drivers of change in eufiredatabase (Accessed July 22, 2010). upland environments, Abingdon, UK: Routledge: 404-431. FIRES. n.d. Fire interdisciplinary research on ecosystem services seminar series – fire and Met Office.England & Wales rainfall (mm) climate change in UK moorlands and heaths. areal series from 1914. Available: http://www. Available: www.fires-seminars.org.uk (Accessed metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/seriesstatistics/ewrain. , 2010). txt (Accessed July 23, 2010).

Hedley, P. 2010. Working towards improving the National Air and Space Administration/University UK’s response to wildfire. Fire Magazine. May of Maryland. 2002. MODIS hotspot/active fire 2010: 34-35. Available: www.fire-magazine.com detections. Data set. MODIS Rapid Response (Accessed July 22, 2010). Project, NASA/GSFC [producer], University of Maryland, Fire Information for Resource Hubacek, K.; Beharry, N.; Bonn, A.; Burt, T.; Holden, Management System [distributors]. Available: J.; Ravera, F.; Stringer, L.; Tarrasón, D. 2009. http://maps.geog.umd.edu (Accessed July 15, Ecosystem services in dynamic and contested 2010). landscapes: The case of UK uplands. In: Winter, M.; and Lobley, M., eds. What is land for? The Quinn, C.H.; Fraser, E.D.G.; Hubacek, K; Reed, food, fuel and climate change . London: M.S. 2010. Property rights in UK uplands and Earthscan. the implications for policy and management. Ecological Economics. 69: 1355-1363. Hurteau, M.D.; Hungate, B.A.; Koch, G.W. 2009. for risk in valuing forest carbon U.S. Fire Administration. 2001. Wildland fires: A offsets. Carbon Balance and Management. historical perspective. Emmitsburg, MD: USFA 4:1. Available: http://www.cbmjournal.com/ Topical Fire Research Series 1(3): 8-12. content/4/1/1 (Accessed July 26, 2010). Available: http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/ pdf/tfrs/v1i3-508.pdf (Accessed July 26, 2010) International Union for Conservation of Nature. UK peatland program. Available: http://www.iucn- uk-peatlandprogramme.org/ (Accessed 26 July 2010).

Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire GTR-NRS-P-84 55 Walker, J.; Hewson, W.; McMorrow, J. 2009. Worrall. F.; Evans, M.E. 2009. The carbon budget Spatial pattern of wildfire distribution on the of upland peat soils. In: Bonn, A.; Allott, T.; moorlands of the South Pennines. Final report Hubacek, K.; Stewart, J., eds. Drivers of change in to Pennine Prospects. Moors for the Future: , upland environments, Abingdon, UK: Routledge: . 93-113.

The content of this paper reflects the views of the author(s), who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the information presented herein.

Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire GTR-NRS-P-84 56