Raging landscapes, shifting strategies

In a world where flame scorches faster and hotter, how we manage fire is no longer simply about fighting back—it’s about fundamentally rethinking our relationship to it. Across forests, woodlands, savannahs, and wild-urban fringes, fire has always been both creator and destroyer. Today, under a warmer, drier climate, the stakes are higher: lives, homes, and ecosystems hang in the balance.

This blog explores the current debate on fire-management: the arguments, the evidence, the uncertainties. I draw on scientific data (especially from Australia, but with global resonance) and aim for a balanced, yet forward-looking perspective.

The conventional toolbox: fuel reduction & prescribed burning

Many land-management agencies rely on fuel reduction burning (also called prescribed or planned burning) and mechanical treatments (like thinning or clearing) to reduce the risk of uncontrolled wildfire spread. The logic is: fewer flammable fuels = less intense fire = more controllable fire. For decades, this has been the backbone of fire-hazard mitigation.

The evidence for

• In the south-west of Western Australia, a 52-year fire-history study found that regular prescribed burning significantly reduced wildfire incidence and extent. For example, treating fuels every ~6 years showed strong mitigation benefits. UWA Research Repository+1

• In a 2019 study of the 2019-20 Australian “Black Summer” fire event, the authors found that prescribed burning did reduce residual risk (area burnt, house loss) in all landscapes studied-even under extreme weather conditions. Nature

• Mechanistic research shows that mechanical treatments + prescribed burning can reduce fuel loads and thus fire hazard: “The effect of fuel removal outweighs the effect of a drier microclimate.” ScienceDirect

• In the interface between wildland and urban areas (“WUI”), studies show that prescribed burning can reduce house-loss risk. CSIRO Publishing

  
  

The trade-offs and caveats

• While the concept is sound, quantifying the benefits in many regions remains problematic. The Australasian review says: “scientifically quantifying and formally measuring its effectiveness … has been problematic.” Aus Disaster Resilience Hub

• Effectiveness drops under extreme weather conditions: even with fuel reduction, when temperature, wind and drought align, fires may overcome reductions. The ‘residual risk’ in the Black Summer study remained high. Nature

• Prescribed burning itself can have ecological, social and health costs: smoke, loss of biodiversity, negative public perception. Aus Disaster Resilience Hub+1

  
  

Key practical argument

Using prescribed burning and fuel treatments is a reasonable and evidence-backed component of fire-management, especially in landscapes with accumulated fuels, and especially at the wildland-urban fringe. But it is not a silver bullet: conditions, scale, ecological context, and climate all modulate the payoff.

The evolving debate: Is “more burning” always better?

Recent research and analysis suggest that the simple paradigm-reduce fuel by burning, reduce fire risk-needs nuance, especially as climate change reshapes fire regimes and ecosystem responses.

Some of the challenges

1. Flammability may increase after disturbance. Research out of Australian National University (ANU) and Curtin University suggests that in some natural forests, logging and frequent prescribed burning may actually increase flammability. Australian National University

   • This challenges the assumption that more fuel reduction automatically means lower risk.

   • It points to the importance of vegetation structure, species composition and the long-term effects of disturbance.

2. Ecological and biodiversity costs. A recent study focusing on biodiversity loss post-Black Summer fires argues for a rethink of where and how often prescribed burns take place if we are to preserve flora and fauna. ABC

   • Some ecosystems are fire-sensitive; frequent burning may degrade habitat rather than protect it.

   • The trade-off arises between hazard reduction and biodiversity conservation.

3. Changing fire regimes under climate change. Many analysts now argue that “business as usual” burning regimes won’t cut it. UNSW Sites

   • Longer fire seasons, higher temperatures, more extreme events.

   • The window for safe prescribed burns may shrink or shift; the conditions under which fuel reduction is effective may alter.

4. Uncertainties in modelling and fuel accumulation. Debate exists over how much fine fuels accumulate, how they decompose, and how accurately models capture this. One commentator called key fuel-accumulation models “fundamentally flawed.” The Guardian

   • If our understanding of fuel loads is off, the foundation of prescribed-burn planning weakens.

   • Modelling of extreme fire risk remains complex and uncertain.

     
     

The argument refined

We thus see that the conversation is shifting from “burn more, burn often” to “burn smart, contextually and adaptively”. Key refinements:

• Target fuels strategically (e.g., interface zones) rather than broad-scale blanket burning.

• Understand the specific ecosystem: what species, what structure, what fuel dynamics?

• Integrate ecological values and biodiversity protection rather than treating them as after-thoughts.

• Recognise that under extreme weather, fuel reduction alone will not prevent large fires; other strategies are needed (suppression capacity, landscape design, evacuation planning).

• Incorporate indigenous and cultural fire management knowledge, which often operates under different paradigms of frequency, scale, purpose. ScienceDirect+1

Emerging approaches & future directions

As a writer and scientist, I find the following forward-looking themes especially compelling.

1. Adaptive governance and community co-management

The governance study “To burn or not to burn: governance of wildfires in Australia” shows how adaptive, inclusive planning generates better outcomes. ecologyandsociety.org

• Engaging Indigenous land-managers, private landholders, local communities.

• Using monitoring feedback loops: did this burn reduce fuel? Did biodiversity suffer? Did risk to life/property shrink?

• Governance that isn’t just agency-led but multi-stakeholder.

2. Integrating mechanical and landscape treatments

Fuel reduction need not be only fire. Mechanical thinning, clearing understorey, creating fuel mosaics are complementary. The “mechanical treatments and prescribed burning” study supports this. ScienceDirect

• In some ecosystems, prescribing fire may not be appropriate; mechanical fuel reduction may be better.

• Considering cost, scale, environmental impacts.

3. Smarter targeting of fire-management resources

Given finite budgets, rising fire risk, and limited windows for safe prescribed burns, prioritisation matters.

• Studies show that prescribed burning close to the wildland-urban interface yields more house-loss reduction than remote burns. CSIRO Publishing+1

• Landscape-scale modelling, combined with remote sensing & machine-learning (academia22 etc) are improving risk‐prediction capability. arXiv+1

• Using those tools, authorities might better allocate where, when and how large burns or treatments should be.

4. Linking fire-management to carbon, climate, and biodiversity

• Fuel‐reduction burns emit greenhouse gases; leaving fuels to build may lead to mega-fires that emit much more. But the net balance is complex. Aus Disaster Resilience Hub+1

• Some ecosystems require particular fire regimes for species survival—and if we deviate we may lose biodiversity.

• We have to think of fire not just in hazard terms, but as an ecological process.

Many species, such as Banksia, have woody fruits that require fire to release their seeds. These species rely on a cycle of fire and regeneration to reproduce.

5. Resilience-building, not just hazard reduction

A key shift: building systems and communities that live with fire rather than just trying to suppress it.

• Enhancing early detection, rapid response capacity.

• Designing settlements for fire-resilience (defensible spaces, building materials).

• Public education and fuel management on private land.

• Recognising that under extreme conditions, suppression may fail and adaptation is essential. The “do nothing approach won’t help” article emphasises combining science, strategic planning and adaptive management. Pursuit

Living with fire

Imagine the land as a body remembering its scars. Fire is both wound and healing scar. Our challenge is not simply to deny the flame but to guide it-so that it reveals patterns rather than destroying meaning. In a warming world, we cannot pretend fire will behave as it once did. Instead, we must listen: to the forest, to the savannah, to the Indigenous traditions, to the smoke that signals change.

We need a fire-management ethic that is as much about coexistence as it is about suppression. One that honours ecological rhythms, the known and the uncertain. One that uses science not as certainty but as compass. One that understands that the cost of inaction (or simplistic action) will be paid in ash, lost species, broken homes, and communities haunted by memory.

Conclusion

The fire-management debate is no longer between “burn or don’t burn”-it is between how, where, when, with whom, and for what purpose we use fire. Science gives both hope and caution: hope in that well-designed treatments can reduce risk, caution in that ecosystems, climate, and human systems are more complex than a single lever can manage.