Wonkka Carissa L, Rogers William E, Kreuter Urs P
Ecol Appl. 2015 Dec;25(8):2382-93. doi: 10.1890/14-1791.1.
Resistance to the use of prescribed fire is strong among many private land managers despite the advantages it offers for maintaining fire-adapted ecosystems. Even managers who are aware of the benefits of using prescribed fire as a management tool avoid using it, citing potential liability as a major reason for their aversion. Recognizing the importance of prescribed fire for ecosystem management and the constraints current statutory schemes impose on its use, several states in the United States have undertaken prescribed burn statutory reform. The stated purpose of these statutory reforms, often called "right to burn" or "prescribed burning" acts, is to encourage prescribed burning for resource protection, public safety, and land management. Our research assessed the consequences of prescribed burn statutory reform by identifying legal incentives and impediments to prescribed fire application for ecosystem restoration and management, as well as fuel reduction. Specifically, we explored the relationship between prescribed burning laws and decisions made by land managers by exploiting a geographic-based natural experiment to compare landowner-prescribed fire use in contiguous counties with different regulations and legal liability standards. Controlling for potentially confounding variables, we found that private landowners in counties with gross negligence liability standards burn significantly more hectares than those in counties with simple negligence standards (F6,72 = 4.16, P = 0.046). There was no difference in hectares burned on private land between counties with additional statutorily mandated regulatory requirements and those requiring only a permit to complete a prescribed burn (F6,72 = 1.42, P = 0.24) or between counties with burn ban exemptions for certified prescribed burn managers and those with no exemptions during burn bans (F6,72 = 1.39, P = 0.24). Lawmakers attempting to develop prescribed burning statutes to promote the safe use of prescribed fire should consider the benefits of lower legal liability standards in conjunction with regulatory requirements that promote safety for those managing forests and rangelands with fire. Moreover, ecologists and land managers might be better prepared and motivated to educate stakeholder groups who influence prescribed fire policies if they are cognizant of the manner in which policy regulations and liability concerns create legal barriers that inhibit the implementation of effective ecosystem management strategies.
尽管使用计划性火烧对维持适应火灾的生态系统有诸多益处，但许多私人土地管理者仍强烈抵制这种做法。即便那些意识到将计划性火烧作为一种管理工具具有好处的管理者，也会避免使用它，将潜在的责任视为他们反感的主要原因。认识到计划性火烧对生态系统管理的重要性以及现行法定制度对其使用的限制，美国的几个州已着手进行计划性火烧的法定改革。这些法定改革，通常被称为“焚烧权”或“计划性火烧”法案，其宣称的目的是鼓励为资源保护、公共安全和土地管理而进行计划性火烧。我们的研究通过确定计划性火烧应用于生态系统恢复、管理以及减少燃料方面的法律激励因素和障碍，评估了计划性火烧法定改革的后果。具体而言，我们利用一项基于地理的自然实验，比较不同法规和法律责任标准的相邻县土地所有者计划性火烧的使用情况，以此探究计划性火烧法律与土地管理者决策之间的关系。在控制潜在的混杂变量后，我们发现，实行重大过失责任标准的县的私人土地所有者，其火烧面积显著多于实行一般过失标准的县（F6,72 = 4.16，P = 0.046）。对于私人土地，在有额外法定强制监管要求的县和仅需许可证即可完成计划性火烧的县之间，火烧公顷数没有差异（F6,72 = 1.42，P = 0.24）；在对认证的计划性火烧管理者有火烧禁令豁免的县和在火烧禁令期间无豁免的县之间，火烧公顷数也没有差异（F6,72 = 1.39，P = 0.24）。试图制定计划性火烧法规以促进计划性火烧安全使用的立法者，应考虑降低法律责任标准的益处，并结合促进用火管理森林和牧场安全的监管要求。此外，如果生态学家和土地管理者认识到政策法规和责任问题如何造成阻碍有效生态系统管理策略实施的法律障碍，他们可能会更有准备且更积极地去教育那些影响计划性火烧政策的利益相关群体。
