Fire and people have complex relationships that vary within and across human communities and that change through time and space. Fire affects human biology, psychology, demography, technology, economy, and politics. People influence fire ecology too: people increase or decrease fire frequency, and disrupt or maintain fire regimes when population levels or settlement patterns change, when technology evolves, and when the political economy shifts. The distribution of fire sensitive trees in relation to prehistoric Native American settlements (Foster, Black, and Abrams 2004) and the variety of successional stages in contemporary Southern forests are material evidence that interactions between people and fire have dynamic effects. When society changes, the environment changes, and fire ecology does also.

In this section of ESFS, you will find up-to-date knowledge about many dimensions of the people-fire relationship. Some aspects of fire-people relationships are more studied than others. More research has been done on fire history and the health effects of fire, for instance, than on cultural perceptions of fire and fire effects on recreation. Several fields of study are emerging because they are especially important in contemporary American society. Fire in the wildland urban interface and the economic consequences of fire, for example, are increasingly active areas of research.

The Fire and People section reviews the human ecology of fire in the South; in other words the ways Southerners think about and interact with fire. It contains syntheses of 10 key topics:

• Human Health Impacts of Fire: There are numerous biological and psychological human health impacts of fire, but the effects vary greatly depending on whether it is a wildfire or prescribed fire.

• Economic Impacts of Fire: Forest fires have economic implications for private, state, and federal landowners as well as for consumers of forest products. The economic outcomes of forest fires are influenced by the dynamic cultural, political, and ecological contexts within which they burn.

• Fire in the Wildland Urban Interface: Wildland urban interface zones (WUI) are places where potentially flammable vegetative fuels meet or intermix with combustible man-made structures. 95% of fires in the Southeast potentially involve the WUI. Fire in the WUI is of unique concern because of special issues that differentiate it from other wildland fires, which, in turn, create a critical need to mitigate fire hazards in the WUI zone. WUI zones in the South continue to expand as the population in the South increases and development encroaches into natural areas. High rainfall and long growing seasons favor rapid vegetation growth. These factors, coupled with the relatively short natural burn cycles in many Southern ecosystems, make the South’s WUI situation distinctly unique, with potentially high fire hazard.

• Fire Management Policies: Policies governing fire management are very complex because of the variety of interests, perspectives, and goals of the interested organizations. Numerous agencies and private parties manage prescribed burn programs and participate in wildland fire operations.

• Fire Education Programs in the South: Fire is an important issue to the public, and public understanding is key to natural resource managers’ ability to effectively manage fire. Understanding the role of fire will help landowners and land users appreciate and support the efforts of federal, state, local, and tribal fire management organizations.

• A History of People and Fire in the South: Fire history is closely linked to human history in the South. The history of human-fire relationships in the South is 12,500 years long. Understanding the history of fire and people in the South can help scientists and managers interpret today’s landscapes and design the best fire management plans.

• Effects of Fire on Cultural Resources: A fires impact on cultural resources -- the material and non-material representations of contemporary, historic, and prehistoric lifeways -- may be direct or indirect.

• Knowledge and Attitudes about Fire: There are a wide range of knowledge and attitudes about fire among Southerners and these influence not only human behavior, but also the ecology of fire.

• The Aesthetics of Fire: Since aesthetics, or the quality of the environment as measured by the human senses, is among the primary forest attributes that the public values, managers must consider the visual quality of the landscape in the development of land management plans.

• Recreation and Fire: Southerners often interact with Nature through recreational activities such as fishing, hunting, picnicing, camping, bicycling, hiking, and history tourism. Prescribed fire is used to manage recreation sites. Wildfires sometimes impacts recreation and recreational sites, but managers can rehabilitate those sites to restore recreational opportunities.

The relationships between human health and forest fires are variable and complex. From a management perspective, forest fires can benefit the environment and enhance resource values. The principle factor to consider when examining the effects of fire on health is whether the fire is a wildland fire or a prescribed fire because there are fundamental differences in the amounts of smoke produced and the exposure of people to smoke. Impacts of wildland fires on health must be distinguished from impacts of prescribed fire because they are very different. Prescribed fires, which are lower intensity and often produce less smoke, are designed to prevent the detrimental effects of catastrophic wildland fires.

The health effects of fire that are most relevant to health and management issues are injuries and premature death, property damage, and a reduction in air quality. There are other health effects of fire, however. Physiological impacts caused by the smoke from forest fires include heart and lung conditions, carcinogenesis, premature death, suppressed immunity, and physical and cognitive impairments. There are some consequences for human health from the changes in water resources that occur as a result of certain types of severe fires. Psychological changes in individuals and communities may result from fire. Visibility impairments may occur when smoke occurs along roadways and scenic vistas.

Threats to human health can vary in severity. For many people, fires have very little or no health impact. Other people experience adverse health effects, especially fire workers who have higher degrees of exposure, residents of wildland-urban interfaces, outdoor enthusiasts, and vulnerable groups including the elderly, children, women, minorities, the poor, and people with pre-existingheart andlung problemsand psychological disorders.

Scientists from numerous disciplines conduct research on the health effects of fire research including pulmonary medicine, epidemiology, public health, clinical and animal toxicology, sociology, and anthropology. Fortunately, risk management techniques have been developed to reduce the threats to human health from fire.

Human health costs of wildland fire and prescribed fire: can one help mitigate the other?

Forestry management practices can shape patterns of health, illness, and disease. A goal of many land managers is to craft ecosystem management plans that simultaneously optimize forest health and human health. In regard to forest fires, the objective of balancing human health and ecosystem health is very difficult to achieve.

The predominant view of fire ecologists and forest managers is that prescribed burning reduces long-term net health costs by reducing the risks of catastrophic wildfires that could result in even greater levels of air pollution and have other injurious effects. Fire ecologists promote prescribed burning as a technique for enhancing ecosystem health in fire-influenced areas that rely on periodic burnings. Many fire ecologists also promote a “let it burn” policy for wildfires arguing against the expensive policies designed to suppress or eliminate unplanned wildland fires. In this view, fire is regarded as beneficial in the long-term ecosystems and people. Unfortunately, some members of the general public perceive the biomass smoke of prescribed fires and wildfires as equally harmful to human health.

Attitudes and policies regarding prescribed fires are somewhat different than for wildland fires. In the case of wildland fires, theoverwhelming public sentiment isthat fires are destructive. Government policies are generally designed to control or eliminate unplanned wildland fires. Attitudes and policies tend to protect human health in the short term, but fire ecologists assert that they are deleterious to ecosystem integrity and human health in the long term. Some activities and phenomena that increase the threat to human health from wildland fires are themselves detrimental to human well-being including mining, settlement in dangerous areas, over-development, and overpopulation.

One hypothetical avenue to reduce human health risks is to extinguish wildfires (Brauer 1999). In reality it is not possible to extinguish all wildfires and completely eliminate human health risks. The complete elimination of forest fires as a source of airemissions is not realistic. It is possible to minimize airemissions from forest fires through the use of land and fire management techniques.

Injuries and Fatalities

Forest fires cause an assortment of direct injuries (Patz, Engelberg, and Last 2000).

Accidents caused by reduced visibility

The principle connection between visibility and human health is that the reduction of visibility due to smoke from wildland and prescribed fires can cause highway vehicle accidents leading to injuries and fatalities (Schwela and others 2000). Detailed statistics are not readily available for the injuries and fatalities in the South caused by a reduction in visibility due to forest fire smoke. Some information, however, is available. Between 1979 and 1988 there were more than 28 deaths, 60 serious injuries, plus many minor injuries on roadways in the South due to low visibility (Mobley 1990). In 2000, reduced visibility on highways caused by forest fire smoke resulted in 5 automobile deaths in Florida and 5 automobile deaths in Mississippi (Achtemeier 2002). In June 2000, a 14-mile section of Interstate 95 was closed when forest fire smoke reduced visibility to near zero and caused 5 traffic accidents in one morning (Machlis 2002).

Super fog – an extremely dense combination of smoke and water vapor that is emitted from smoldering fires and the burning of wet fuels – is very dangerous when vehicle drivers encounter it along roadways (Achtemeier 2002). A 2002 wildfire in South Florida produced super-fog that caused a pileup with several fatalities on Interstate 75. Five people were killed and another 26 people were injured on the Mississippi/Alabama border in 2000 in an accident caused by super fog. People who encounter super fog while they are driving have a very difficult time navigating their vehicles because of the drastic reduction in visibility. Visibility can decrease to as low as three feet when super fog is present.

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning

Acute exposure to carbon monoxidein doses high enough to dramatically reduce blood oxygen is deadly (Therriault 2001). Thus, carbon monoxide poisoning, or carboxyhemoglobin, can cause premature death. Carbon monoxide poisoning also causes atheriosclerosis leading to premature death (Evans and Campbell 1983). Some studies show that disease can result from interactions of carbon monoxide with nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides (Evans and Campbell 1983).

Premature Deaths

Premature death can result from inhalation of particulate matter (Patz, Engelberg, and Last 2000). People who live in areas with high levels of particulate matter have reduced life expectancy (Brauer 1999). Numerous studies document an association between sudden, tremendous increases in particulate matter and increases in daily mortality (Schwartz and others 1993). Acute exposure to less dramatic increases in particulate matter have also been associated with higher death rates (Schwartz and others 1993).

Dockery and Pope (1994) cite a set of studies that document a consistent correlation between increases in particulate matter and increases in daily mortality. In a study in Kingston, Tennessee researchers found that for each 10 l/m³ increase in particulate matter (PM₁₀) there is a 1.6% change in daily mortality. Similarly, in Birmingham, Alabama researchers documented that for each 10 l/m³ increase in particulate matter (PM₁₀) there is a 1.0% change in total daily mortality including a 1.5% increase in respiratory mortality, and a 1.6% increase in cardiovascular mortality. Also notable in these studies is the association between each 10 l/m³ increase in particulate matter (PM₁₀) and an 0.8% rise in the numbers of patients admitted to hospitals, a 1.0% rise in the number of patients who sought emergency care, and a 3.4% rise in asthmatic patients who sought emergency care. Among people with asthma there was a 3% increase in both asthmatic attacks and bronchodilator use. Deaths due to cancer and problems other than heart and lung damage were not associated with rises in particulate matter (PM₁₀) in any of these studies.While the statistically significant links between air pollution and premature deaths due to heart and lung problems are well documented, it is difficult to demonstrate that one is a direct cause of the other. Dockery and Pope (1994) suggest particulate matter is an additional environmental stressor that promotes premature death for vulnerable people and those who have pre-existing health problems. Indeed, particulate matter in urban and indoor air pollution causes respiratory illness and disease that lead to premature death in infants, the elderly, and people with pre-existing heart and lung disorders (Brauer 1999).

Injuries and Deaths Among Firefighters

As anoccupational group, firefightersencounter numerous injuries and deaths from a variety of causes. The most common causes of death for career fire fighters are heart failure related to stress and overexertion, asphyxiation, and traumatic injuries. Many of the firefighters who died from heart failure while on duty had pre-existing conditions such as a previous heart attack. Vehicle crashes cause many firefighter deaths when considering both structural and wildland firefighters (NFPA 2004). The most common causes of death for volunteer fire fighters were asphyxiation and traumatic injury from accidents involving motor vehicles. Motor vehicle accidents cause deaths and injuries among both volunteer and career firefighters who are traveling to or from fire sites. Several programs and organizations have been established to address firefighter safety. Many firefighter deaths are preventable.

On the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) website, is a list of firefighter injuries and deaths from 1910-2002. Since 1910, 883 firefighters have died while on duty. The following list enumerates the numbers of fatalities for some of the main causes of accidents from 1910-2002:

Deaths from heart attacks occur during fires. For example, in 1998 an Alabama Forestry Commission employee died of a heart attack while he who was constructing a fireline (Wade 1998). In 2000, a driver/operator died from arrythmia brought on by atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease shortly after clearing debris from a fireline as part of the USDA Forest Service Wildland Fire Fighter “red card” certification program. In 2004 a 42-year old man died while responding to the lightning-caused Mailbox fire on the Osceola Ranger District of the National Forests in Florida.

Firefighters sometimes become victims of unpredictable fire behavior. In 1999, two volunteer fire fighters died when they were overrun as they tried to flee upslope from a fire advancing through a hollow. A Forest Ranger died after receiving second- and third-degree burns over 60% of his body. This Forest Ranger received burns while fleeing on foot from an advancing fire after a blade on his bulldozer got stuck in a tree.

Forest fires produce biomass smoke containing pollutants that have potential adverse effects on human health. Adverse effects of biomass smoke are defined as medically-significant or culturally-recognized biophysical or psychosocial changes in individual or population health (American Thoracic Society 2000). In addition to adverse effects, beneficial changes in interpersonal relations, and in socio-cultural, economic, and political systems can occur as a consequence of forest fires.

Medically significant biophysical effects of biomass smoke include acute, subchronic, and chronic effects on public health.The major constituents of biomass smoke (Table:Human Health Effects of Selected Smoke Constituents from Biomass Smoke)have adverse biophysical effects. The spectrum of adverse physiological affects ranges from temporary, relatively minor eye, nose, and throat irritations, to persistent cardiopulmonary conditions and less-commonly, to premature death. The most notable subset of biophysical effects involves heart and lung conditions (Table:Heart and Lung Conditions Associated with Biomass Smoke). It is clear that air pollution in general interferes with heart and lung processes. Changes in heart and lung processes caused by biomass smoke as one specific type of air pollution are not as clear. There are limitations to this research. For instance, fire effects are variable.

Smoke Inhalation Hazards

Inhalation, ingestion, and dermal absorption are the exposure routes of biomass smoke pollutants. Inhalation is the most common pathway through which humans absorb constituents of biomass smoke. Dermal absorption might also occur through a person’s surface (or skin) cells. One substance that skin cells directly absorb is free radicals that may contribute to the development of emphysema, Adult/Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), and lung cancer (Dost 1991). Gastrointestinal absorption is another pathway of exposure to the pollutants emitted by fires. Gastrointestinal absorption can occur through the ingestion of products such as plants that have absorbed pollutants through the soil or ash, wildlife that have inhaled or ingested pollutants, and freshwater species (e.g., fish) that have absorbed or ingested contaminated water.

Impaired Visibility Hazards

The principle connection between visibility and human health is that the reduction of visibility due to forest fire smoke can cause highway vehicle accidents leading to injuries and fatalities (Goh and others 1999; Schwela and others 2000). Another connection between visibility and human health is that forest fire smoke reduces the aesthetics of a vista that can have psychological consequences for people who value clear views. The cultural preference for scenic vistas that many Americans share is considered to be an Air Quality Related Value (AQRV) (Tonnassen 2000). The reductions in visibility that sometimes accompany biomass smoke can change the look of the landscape, typically in ways that do not coincide with human preferences. People have more appreciation for the beauty of landscapes when their views are unobstructed by smog (Machlis 2002).

Governmental regulations require fire personnel to maintain air quality and visibility. Fire workers are specifically trained to manage smoke so that the general public encounters minimal amounts. Researchers in the USDA Forest Service and other fire agencies devote a great deal of attention to understanding smoke and devising techniques to control it during wildfires and prescribed fires. Unfortunately, there are cases where fire behavior, meteorology, and population patterns make smoke management very difficult. The degree of visibility reduction in any area depends on the character and concentration of smoke emitted by a forest fire combined with meteorological factors such as humidity, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Visibility decreases as humidity rates increase because more water is available for particulate matter to absorb which increases the ability of particulates to scatter light (EPA 1998). The high humidity that is typically found in many parts of the South results in nuisance smoke being more frequent in this region than in some other regions of the United States. High humidity combined with other factors make nuisance smoke a particularly important issue in the South. Achtemeier (2002: 41) describes the complexity of the situation as follows: “Meterology, climate, and topography combine with population density and fire frequency to make nuisance smoke a chronic issue in the south.”

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers visibility to be a matter of “public welfare” (EPA 1998). To protect public welfare, the EPA has established primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) with the goal of maintaining socially acceptable levels of visibility. The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE), a coalition of EPA employees and federal land managers, monitors and enforces compliance with NAAQS. State, tribal, and local laws also contribute to the regulation of “nuisance smoke,” a category that includes the smog that limits visibility. Resource management organizations, timber companies, and private landowners cooperate with governmental agencies in fire and smoke management activities (Mutch 2002).

Water Quality Hazards

Prescribed fires have much less effect on water quality than wildfires. One way to lessen the impact that wildland fires have on water quality is to increase the use of prescribed fires.

Erosion poses risks to human well-being. In some ecosystems, forest fires increase the frequency of flooding which is a natural hazard that can pose threats to human well-being, sometimes leading to premature death (Machlis 2002). The runoff of sediment and nutrients (e.g., nitrate and nitrite) that accompanies erosion causes declines in water quality.

Erosion: turbidity and sedimentation

Increases of sediment in drinking water poses risks to human health (Landsberg and Tiedemann 2000). Excessive amounts of sediment may threaten the operation of water treatment facilities. Turbidity in streamflow often increases after a forest fire. Turbidity poses indirect threats to human health by encouraging microbial production which increases the risks for infections in humans.

Changes in water chemistry

Water chemistry can be affected directly by input of nutrients and other substances in eroding sediment, and by the direct diffusion of biomass smoke into surface water. Thus, forest fires can contribute to eutrophication of water when additional nutrients are added, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus. Diffusion is a source of nitrogen in water supplies (Landsberg and Tiedemann 2000), as is runoff. Similarly, excess phosphorous partly results from the leaching of ashes that drop and dissolve directly in streamwater (Landsberg and Tiedemann 2000). It has been suggested that forest fires increase the concentration of dissolved salts in drinking water, but this has not been adequately demonstrated (Van Lear and Waldrop 1989). Mercury, a toxic metal that is a powerful neurotoxin (Tonnassen 2000), is sometimes present in forest fire smoke and may be deposited in water supplies. Human exposure to mercury can occur through ingestion of freshwater species and wildlife as well as through the inhalation of biomass smoke. Mercury concentrations may be particularly significant in the South. The Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) is a congregation of 30 sites throughout the United States that are monitored for annual mercury deposition and concentration in wetfall. The highest mercury concentrations in 1997 were measured in the Everglades National Park, Florida (27.2 g/m²). The third highest mercury concentrations were in Congaree Swamp National Monument, South Carolina (13.5 g/m²) (Tonnassen 2000).

Changes in the light environment

In some fire situations, biomass smoke and haze may decrease the amount of ultraviolet light (UV-B) that reaches surface water. The risk to human health occurs when a reduction in UV-B is sufficient enough to increase the growth of bacteria and pathogens in water supplies (Malilay 1999). In other situations, forest fires increase the exposure of surface waters to sunlight. Water temperatures may increase when fires burn off riparian vegetation exposing water sources to more direct sunlight. The erosion of nutrients into surface waters that can occur after fire may result in eutrophication which, when combined with increased sunlight and higher water temperature, can change the “color, smell, and taste of drinking water” and encourage the growth of microbes (Landsberg and Tiedemann 2000: 128).

Variable Effects of Fire on Human Health

It is difficult to make general assessments of the health risks from biomass smoke as a whole. Information about the relation between human health and single constituents of biomass smoke is more abundant in the scientific literature than information about the health effects of some combination of constituents. Knowledge of the combined effects (additive, potentiated, and synergistic) of the multiple constituents of biomass smoke is limited because most research to date examines the effects of single constituents. Yet, people experience biomass smoke as a complex mixture of chemical compounds rather than as isolated components. Even if scientific case studies of the relation between human health and biomass smoke from particular forest fires were plentiful, generalizations could only be made with caution since the constituents of smoke and their relative proportions vary from one fire to the next.

Exposure Among the General Public

Exposure Among People Who Work On or Near Fires

Firefighters encounter unique health risks while performing their occupational duties. The experiences of fire workers differ from those of the general public. They are exposed to unusual concentrations of hazards and pollutants with atypical frequencies of exposure. Physical fitness, work practices, meteorology, and fire characteristics are some sources of variation in health outcomes among individual firefighters. Fortunately there are numerous safety programs and governmental regulations for risk management to mitigate potential harmful consequences and protect the health of firefighters.

Gharabegian and others (1985) investigated noise exposures among several groups of fire workers including, fire line/camp crews, helipad crews, and ground crews at an airbase. 100% of helipad crew members, 100% of portable pump operators, and 30% of those hot shot crew members who used chain saws received noise doses during a 14-hour work shift that exceeded OSHA allowable limits. However, among the fire line work group as a whole, only 10% of the members received a noise dose level above 100% of the OSHA allowable limits.

Firefighter injuries and deaths may occur.

Exposure to Fire by Sensitive Sub-Groups of the Population

Exposure to Fire and Psychosocial Wellbeing

Much of the scientific knowledge about the effects of fire on human health is created in medical experiments that isolate individual elements of smoke and study their effects in controlled laboratories. The results of such “pure” medical trials may be misleading since in “real” situations many substances interact with other substances and the combination of elements can have a different effect that a single element. In addition, it is difficult to duplicate dose-exposures for individuals in a diverse population and for variable fire events (Evans and Campbell 1983). Often, the high doses used in clinical trials are far greater than the doses humans would be exposed to from forest fires, particularly prescribed fires. Dose exposures among firefightersdiffer from those of the general population. Psychological issues among wildland firefightersalso differ from the general population. Psychosocial responses to fire differ from biophysical responses.

Dose Response to Air Pollutants

Exposure to smoke from fires has the potential to cause direct injuries and fatalities, suppressed immunity, and physical and cognitive impairments. The respiratory conditions that result from inhalation of biomass smoke include temporary, permanent, and progressive breathing problems (American Thoracic Society 2000). For most people, smoke is an irritant. Teary and burning eyes, a runny nose, and a scratchy and sore throat are the most common symptoms of exposure to smoke and its irritating components which are mainly organic acids, aldehydes, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter.

Research shows that there is a link between elevated air pollution and decreases in lung functioning (Larson and Koenig 1994). Some common lung and heart problems caused by biomass smoke (Betchley and others 1997; Kane and Alarie 1977; Patz and others 2000; Tan and others 2000) are:

• decline in lung functioning
• decline in breathing rate
• breathing discomfort
• chest pain
• emphysema
• asthma
• allergies
• bronchitis
• angina
• myocardial infarction/heart attack
• pneumonia
• premature death

There are numerous components of smoke (Table:Heart and Lung Conditions Associated with Biomass Smoke)that cause declines in lung functioning, either individually or in combination. These include: particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, and other substances.

Particulate Matter

Particulate matter is one of the most significant emissions from forest fires (EPA 1998; Ottmar 2001). Prescribed fires almost never produce enough particulate matter to damage human health. Very intense wildfires, however, may produce enough particulate matter to cause some health problems.

People who have pre-existing illnesses such as asthma and heart conditions may experience difficulties when particulate matter is very thick. When particulate matter is extremely dense, it can damage the lungs, cellular membranes and red blood cells (Dockery and Pope 1994; Eeden 2001; Larson and Koenig 1994; Osterman and Brauer 2000; Tan and others 2000). Coughing is the most common lung problem among people who are exposed to particulate matter in the air (Dockery and Pope 1994). People who inhale a lot of particulate matter may also experience discomfort from breathing, shortness of breath, asthma, wheezing, excess phlegm production, lung inflammation, systemic inflammation in the body, upper and lower respiratory tract infections, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and Ischemic Cardiomyopathy (Dost 1991; Eeden 2001; Health Research Working Group 2001; Larson and Koenig 1994). Exposure to extremely high levels of particulate matter is linked to cancer (Adami, Hunter, Trichopoulos 2002).

Irritants

Biomass smoke and some of its constituents are irritants. Smoke inhalation causes eye irritations and upper respiratory tract irritations. Symptoms from acute exposure to organic acids, aldehydes (e.g., acrolein and formaldehyde), and particulate matter include teary and burning eyes, runny nose, and scratchy and sore throat. Sulfur dioxide by itself irritates the lungs and in combination with particulate matter has even greater irritating effects (Evans and Campbell 1983). Acrolein is an irritant that is toxic to the cells in the upper respiratory tract (Dost 1991). When forest fires burn in areas where the soil contains crystalline silica, smoke inhalation can cause lung inflamation and scarring, thereby reducing the amount of oxygen the lungs are able to absorb (Ottmar and Reinhardt 2001).

The inhalation of some plant compounds in smoke can cause skin and respiratory irritations. Some botanical species that cause skin irritations in people who have direct contact with the whole plant can cause even worse reactions in people who inhale the smoke that is emitted from the burning plant. One example of this sort is poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Other plants that do not necessarily cause adverse reactions in their whole, living form may have severe consequences for people who inhale the smoke from the burning plant.

Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide is a major constituent of biomass smoke. Inhalation of carbon monoxide increases production of carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) above the body’s normal amounts. Carboxyhemoglobin are bonds of carbon monoxide and hemoglobin that form when carbon monoxide displaces blood oxygen. In excessive amounts, carboxyhemoglobin:

• causes oxygen deprivation
• damages body tissue
• coughing and cold-like symptoms
• complicates atherosclerosis
• complicates coronary heart disease

Ozone

The following conditions can result from exposure to ozone (Evans and Campbell 1983; Patz, Engelberg, and Last 2000):

• chest pain
• pulmonary edema
• headaches
• aggravation of pre-existing edema
• aggravation of pre-existing arrhythmia

Cancer-causing Agents in Smoke

A number of the individual components of forest fire smoke have demonstrated carcinogenic effects which can lead to cancer. These include: particulate matter(Ostermann and Brauer 2000), dioxins, including the dioxin TCDD- a component of herbicides (Mukerjee 1997), nitrogen oxides(Adami, Hunter, Trichopoulos 2002), ozone, free radicals, over thirty polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and hundreds of PAH derivatives(Fang and others 1999; Adami, Hunter, Trichopoulos 2002), formaldehyde(Therriault 2001; Ottmar and Reinhardt 2001), other aldehydes, elemental carbon, and traces metals(Partanen 1993).

Experimental field and laboratory burns show that forest fires could increase the risk of human exposure to radionuclides(e.g., iodine-129, cesium-137, and chlorine-36) in areas contaminated with radioactive elements (Amiro and others 1996). Human exposure may occur through inhalation of smoke containing radionuclides or ingestion of plants growing in soil and ash containing radionuclides. In these cases, radionuclides can have immediate and/or delayed carcinogenic effects for the exposed population. Some claim that the wildland fire that burned through the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho in 2000 may have exposed people to harmful byproducts from the combustion of radioactive substances (Machlis 2002). However, no such examples have been found in the South.

Suppressed Immunity

The inhalation of wood smoke decreases resistance to lung infections and increases the possibility of acquiring respiratory infections (Brauer 1999; Dost 1991; Ward 1999). Aldehydes–namely acrolein–in wood smoke inhibit the ability of scavenger cells in the lungs to kill bacteria, thus increasing the possibility of respiratory infection (Ward 1999). The dioxins that are sometimes present in forest fire smoke decrease the ability of the body’s immune system to resist infections and diseases (Mukerjee 1997).

Physical and Cognitive Impairments

Trace gases in air pollution are associated with weight loss, weakness, and fatigue. Carboxyhemoglobin, from breathing excessive amounts of carbon monoxide, causes deficiency of blood oxygen leading to slower reaction times, slower reflexes, drowsiness, disorientation, fatigue, diminished work capacity, reduced manual skills, and impaired mental abilities (Betchley and others 1997; Evans and Campbell 1983). Inhalation of excessive amounts of carbon monoxide reduces maximal aerobic capacity but not sub-maximal capacity in “young, healthy males” (Evans and Campbell 1983:148). The physical discomforts and psychological stress that accompany exposure to forest fire smoke can also contribute to decreases in physical performance (Evans and Campbell 1983). Air pollution causes an assortment of other physical and cognitive impairments including the following: inability to distinguish letters, colors, and brightness; inability to calculate time intervals; and interferes with peripheral vision and ability to respond to peripheral stimuli (Evans and Campbell 1983).

There have been more studies documenting adverse health effects for wildland firefighters than there have been studies of firefighters at prescribed burns.

In general, fire workers experience acute, subchronic, and chronic effects of exposure to forest fires. The acute exposures to respirable irritants that fire workers sometimes experience can result in runny noses, tearing eyes, stinging eyes and nose, and declines in lung function (Reinhart, Ottmar, and Hanneman 2000). A study of Time Weighted Average showed that the exposure of wildland firefighters to particulate matter exceeds the Occupational Safety and Health Administration-Permissable Exposure Limit (OSHA-PEL) (Materna and others 1999). A study of a mop-up crew at a forest fire, found that 14% of exposures to total particulate matter exceeded the OSHA ceiling limit. Exposures to polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and crystalline silica among this crew were below OSHA-PELs. In some cases, the exposure of firefighters to PAHs may be consistent and long term, extending for several weeks while they are on duty (Rothman and others 1993). Chronic lung dysfunction among fire workers can occur as a result of the cumulative effects of exposures to smoke over longer time spans (Liu and others 1992).

Exposure to unsafe levels of carbon monoxide from burning vegetation can cause fire workers to have nausea, headaches, fatigue, can impair cognitive abilities, and can reduce their work capacity (Reinhart, Ottmar, and Hanneman 2000). Research on fire worker exposures to carbon monoxide is ambiguous on the issue of dose-exposures. In some cases, firefighters may receive doses of particulate matter that are greater than limits established by federal regulatory agencies (Liu and others 1992). Some studies found that fire workers’ exposures to carbon monoxide during an 8-hour work shift did not exceed the OSHA-PEL (McMahon and Bush 1992).

At wildland fires, instantaneous carbon monoxide exposures of fireline crew were below the OSHA ceiling limit in one study. Other studies suggest that fire workers may be exposed to dangerous levels of carbon monoxide. A study of fire workers downwind from a North Carolina fire showed that they were exposed to levels of carbon monoxide that were much higher that OSHA ceiling limits (Brauer 1999). Another study of wildland firefighers documented that they are at risk for being exposed to carbon monoxide concentrations well above the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommended limit (Materna and others 1992). At the 1988 Yellowstone Fires, firefighters suffered declines in lung function and increases in methcholine responsiveness (Materna and others 1992). Dust is the only air pollutant for which exposures among Yellowstone firefighters exceeded NIOSH occupational limits. The carbon monoxide exposures among gasoline pump operators at forest fires can be extremely high, exceeding the OSHA ceiling limit (Materna and others 1992).

In another study, researchers measured 200 shift-exposures and burn-duration Time Weighted Average (TWA) exposures to pollutants among prescribed fire crews over a period of 3 years (Reinhart, Ottmar, and Hanneman 2000). The exposure measurements were taken for a variety of fire workers including the burn boss, lighting crew, holding crew, holding supervisor, attack crew, engine drivers and riders, sawyer, and mop-up crew. Two percent of the group exceeded the American Council of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists-Threshold Limit Value (ACGIH-TLV) for carbon monoxide during an 8-hour work shift. Eight percent exceeded carbon monoxide limits during a total burn (Reinhart, Ottmar, and Hanneman 2000). For respirable irritants (formaldehyde, acrolein, and particulate matter [PM_3.5]), 14% of shift-average exposures and 30% of exposures for the total burn exceeded ACGIH-TLVs.

Fire workers may be exposed to aldehydes at levels that exceed OSHA-PELs (Liu and others 1992). Aldehydes that have been detected in biomass smoke include formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, furfural, and acrolein. One study found that biomass smoke contains more formaldehyde than any other aldehyde while another study found acrolein to be the most abundant of the aldehydes (Materna and others 1992).

In their research, Spear and Cannell (2002) found that, among mixmasters whom they surveyed, exposures to respirable dust, dyes, and hydrogen cyanide in retardants never exceeded the limits dictated by ACGIH TLV-TWAs or OSHA PEL-TWAs. Mixmasters are the group of fire workers who prepare the retardants that are used to control forest fires. Common fire suppressants such as Fire-Trol GTS R and Fire-Trol 300F contain potentially hazardous chemicals. Typically, retardants are prepared by mixing water into powdered chemicals. These chemicals are effective fire suppressants, but are also potentially toxic to humans. Exposure to the ammonium sulfate in these retardants may cause “hypermotility, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting from ingestion” (Spear and Cannell 2002: 66). The diammonium phosphate in retardants may cause dermatitis, emphysema, asthma attacks, and irritations of the eyes, respiratory tract, and gastrointestinal tract. Long-term exposure to retardants may cause irritations to the eyes, skins, and respiratory tract.

Exposure to forest fires impacts psychosocial wellbeing (Evans and Kantrowitz 2002). Adverse psychosocial consequences of forest fires range from temporary frustration, to the temporary or permanent reduction of health related quality of life (HRQL), to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Beneficial consequences of forest fires include positive transformations in interpersonal relations, financial profit, and community cooperation.

Air pollution is a source of psychological distress. Ozone is associated with negative emotions and aggressive behaviors (Evans and Kantrowitz 2002). Air pollution and bad-smelling air are associated with increases in depression, anxiety, and with increases in hospital admissions for psychiatric problems (American Thoracic Society 2000). Studies show that the bad odors that often accompany air pollution episodes cause evaluative and cognitive deficiencies as well as behavioral disorders (Rotton 1983). Sensory stress from bad odors impair cognitive and intellectual functioning by interfering with an individual’s ability to complete complex proof reading tasks, but does not decrease abilities to complete simple arithmetic tasks (Rotton 1983). One of the ways that sensory stress effects behavior is that when a person has little control, he/she becomes frustrated more easily (Rotton 1983).

Property loss, such as the destruction of a home or workplace or damage to personal goods, can be a source of grief. Feelings of helplessness may arise among people whose lives and property are threatened by wildland fires (Machlis 2002). In some cases fire may cause the disruption of communities, which is also a source of grief (Oliver-Smith 1996).

Forest fires potentially induce other profound forms of stress and serious psychological illnesses, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Jones and others 2002; Patz, Engelberg, and Last 2000). PTSD can occur among people who live in areas that have been affected by fires. Following a fire in 1985, members of the Baldwin Hills (Los Angeles) community exhibited an array of post-traumatic stress symptoms including trouble sleeping, nightmares, jumpiness, disturbing memories, and depression (Maida 1989). Destruction of ‘place’ is a trauma that evokes PTSD symptoms (Oliver-Smith 1996). PTSD symptoms emerge following dislocation from home including frustration, fatigue, stress, and panic (Machlis 2002). Similarly, the evacuations that sometimes occur when forest fires threaten homes and businesses or when biomass smoke reaches unhealthy levels (Mutch 2002; Therriault 2001; Wade 1998) create psychological distress. Although it has not been demonstrated in scientific studies, we might hypothesize that some portion of the thousands of people who were evacuated from their homes in Florida in 1998 experienced some degree of psychological distress. Other fire-related events that evoke PTSD symptoms in adults are threats to life, physical injury, and the injury or death of a loved one (Jones and others 2002).

Perceptions of forest fires may change following a fire. Direct experience with a forest fire causes people to perceive a higher risk of future fires or to become more fearful of fire (Machlis 2002). In some cases, prescribed fires may be less acceptable to people who previously had direct experience with fires (Machlis 2002). In other cases, prescribed fires may positively affect aesthetic values leading to greater satisfaction with one’s living environment by reducing the potential for severe wildland fires to cause more dramatic disruptions of the landscape. Beyond perceptions, forest fires may affect the ‘real’ future vulnerability and resiliency of a community (Machlis 2002) due to changes in ecosystem traits, material infrastructure, cultural characteristics, and social relations.

Communities and the Psychology of Fire

Fires have been referred to as “engines of change” (Force, Machlis, and Zhang 2000) in communities. In fact, in human history some disasters have spawned social transformations monumental enough to be labeled “cultural evolution” (Oliver-Smith 1996: 312). Communication patterns among community members may change during and after a forest fire (Machlis 2002). Social relationships may change as a result of forest fires. Relationships may change between individual citizens, subgroups within a population, and between citizens and organizations (e.g., land and fire management teams). There may also be changes in relations between individuals, communities, and cultural or ethnic groups (Gordon and others 1995).

Fires, like other disasters, can instigate changes in cultural values. For instance, values regarding marriage may shift from a long-term commitment to an immediate means for gaining security (Oliver-Smith 1996). Significant religious changes follow major disasters. Transformations in symbols and rituals occur as a consequence of natural disasters (Oliver-Smith 1996). People may mourn for symbols of self and community that are damaged or destroyed by forest fires (Oliver-Smith 1996).

Fires, as natural disasters, affect self-identity and the lived experiences of individuals (Oliver-Smith 1996). Fires can alter community-identity. Fires affect future perceptions and decisions related to self and community; for example, perceptions of forest fire risks and decisions about landscape management.

Researchers have found that disasters change political dynamics in communities (Oliver-Smith 1996). We might extrapolate from those studies to suggest that catastrophic wildland fires – as a type of disaster – create conditions that encourage the reorganization of power relations, the formation of new alliances and agendas, and the emergence of activism (Oliver-Smith 1996). The politics of representation are a critical factor for communities experiencing forest fires. The power to portray forest fires and communities who experience fires influences perceptions held by insiders and outsiders of the community.

Oliver-Smith (1996: 302) describes disasters as “challenges to the structure and organization of a society.” Forest fires may change community infrastructure (Machlis 2002). Interruptions in social services and damage to infrastructure cause individual and group stress (Oliver-Smith 1996). There may be significant changes in social structure as a result of a fire. Individuals who experience a rise in social status may benefit from forest fires; for instance, community members who successfully control part of a wildland fire or firefighters who keep a fire from damaging local structures. Other members of the community may not benefit from social changes. In some communities fires, like natural hazards in general, confer a negative image upon, or stigmatize, a particular place, person, or subgroup of the population (Machlis 2002).

Wildland firefighters, like other emergency workers, suffer numerous psychological stressors in addition to physical stressors. Fox and Bowlus (1996: 42) list the following causes of stress among wildland firefighters: “line of duty death(s) or traumatic injury, severely injured or dead infants and children, very close calls that are particularly life threatening or emotionally upsetting, an incident attracting excessive media interest…a disaster…fire shelter deployment, burnovers, roll out of burning debris, and falling dead trees (snags)."

Fifty percent of 333 wildland firefighters reported experiencing 12 out of 45 stress symptoms listed on a questionnaire in a survey administered by Fox and Bowlus (1996). The following list includes the main stress symptoms and the percentage of respondents who experienced the symptom:

• 76% of those respondents experienced frustration
• 69% irritability
• 63% anger
• 62% sadness
• 62% sleep disturbances
• 59% mood swings
• 56% avoidance of feelings
• 56% loss of enthusiasm
• 54% fatigue
• 56% relationship problems
• 53% anxiety
• 52% depression

Wildland fire control and suppression techniques contribute to the reduction of human health costs. Prescribed fire practices are designed to produce minimal human health threats. The USDA Forest Service publishes smoke management guidelines that instruct land managers in the best ways to reduce the health costs of prescribed burns (Hardy, Hermann, and Mutch 2001). Numerous techniques are available to land and fire managers for preventing and reducing the potential for water pollution. The Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) program includes treatments to prevent or reduce sedimentation of water sources in areas affected by wildland fires (Landsberg and Tiedemann 2000). Workers at prescribed fires use techniques that protect water supplies including “limiting fire severity, avoiding burning on steep slopes, and limiting burning on sandy or potentially water repellent soils” (Landsberg and Tiedemann 2000: 126).

Despite the best efforts of fire workers, biomass smoke sometimes reaches unhealthy levels in populated areas. When air quality does exceed healthy limits, officials issue health alerts (Machlis 2000). In order to avoid excessive exposure in such cases it has been recommended that:

• Outdoor gatherings and activities be curtailed during smoke episodes.
• Exercising outdoors is avoided where there high levels of biomass smoke are present (Therriault 2001). Exercisers are vulnerable to higher doses of air pollutants because they tend to breathe through their mouth and to inhale faster and deeper bringing more pollutants into the lungs.
• Public health officials recommend that people stay indoors during smoke episodes either in clean air shelters or in homes with clean air (Therriault 2001).

Outdoor air pollution can penetrate indoor areas. Indoor air pollution should be minimized by:

• avoiding smoking tobacco and minimizing burning fossil fuels for heat, for cooking, or for light
• using an effective air filters to clean particulate matter and harmful gases from indoor air such as the air conditioner, HEPA (High Efficiency Particulate) filters,or portable and electronic air cleaners (Therriault 2001)

In some cases, it is necessary to evacuate people who live in an area where biomass smoke has reached unhealthy levels. Evacuation reduces exposure to harmful air pollutants by moving people from sites with high levels of pollution to places with better air quality. Evacuation is feasible for some members of a community but there may be socio-economic barriers that hinder others from evacuating such as job responsibilities and economic limitations (Mott and others 1999).

People who experience adverse health effects from air pollution seek care in hospital emergency rooms and are sometimes admitted to hospitals for respiratory (Patz, Engelberg, and Last 2000) and other illnesses. Some people suffering from adverse consequences of biomass smoke seek care from private physicians.

Protecting the Health of the Firefighter

Many firefighter deaths are preventable. Deaths related to vehicle accidents, for example, could be reduced if firefighters have adequate driver safety training and obey traffic laws such as using seatbelts and not speeding (NFPA 2004). Firefighter deaths related to heart failure could be prevented with adequate health and safety programs (NFPA 2004).

Several programs and organizations address firefighter safety. One example is the Fire Fighter Fatality and Investigation Program established by the National Institutes for Safety and Health in 1998 to understand and prevent firefighter injuries and deaths. Another example is the Federal Fire and Aviation Safety Team who, together with the National Interagency Fire Center, publishes “6 Minutes to Safety”, a web-based program whose objective is to educate firefighters in the most up-to-date safety initiatives. The National Interagency Fire Center maintains SAFENET, a system whose objective is to ensure firefighter safety by enabling all firefighters to report unsafe working conditions. The National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) provides safety training for firefighters, posts web-based safety alerts.

Wildland firefighters use the following strategies to cope with stress (Fox and Bowlus 1996: 44-45):

• 91% “concentrate on other things”
• 88% exercise
• 88% “think about how things could have been different if different actions would have been taken by the individual”
• 87% “talk about the incident with coworkers”
• 86% “talk with family and friends”
• 86% “think about the humorous aspects of the event”
• 85% “try to be more helpful to others”

Decreasing Psychological Stress

Fire-adapted communities may be a useful concept for measuring a group’s level of fire preparedness and capacity for coping with a fire.

Forest fires have the potential to galvanize or fragment communities. Communities who have low amounts of the kinds of capital that is useful for responding positively to fire events (social, natural, financial, and other types of capital) may have the highest risk of being adversely affected by forest fires. ‘Traditional’ types of communities may have more capacity to recover from a fire event. In contrast, newer communities, such as in a wildland-urban interface composed of recent in-migrants, may have less capacity to adjust after a fire.

Cooperation among people can catalyze a community’s recovery from disasters (Oliver-Smith 1996). For instance, joining together to rehabilitate land burned in a wildland fire can have a healing effect for a community (Machlis 2002). Social bonds may be strengthened among people who cooperate during a wildland fire and in preparation for or recovery from a wildland fire.

Strong social networks can serve as support systems helping individuals cope with the physical, psychological, and other effects of forest fires. On the other hand, weak or vulnerable social networks might create additional stress. Often, community members as well as local and extra-local organizations assist individuals with treating physical injuries and repairing material damages. Assistance with psychological issues may be an explicit target of aid or it may occur as a byproduct of other forms of assistance.

Aid organizations can help mitigate psychological distress among people who have suffered injuries and loss due to forest fires (Machlis 2002). On the other hand, the “strange people” in disaster relief organizations who enter a community to deliver aid or repair damage can be a source of stress for local residents (Oliver-Smith 1996). It is possible that fire management crews, like aid organizations, and the materials that they bring with them cause stress for residents of communities located near fire events. The sights and sounds of equipment arriving to fight a fire may cause the recurrence of fear among people who have prior experiences with wildland fires (Machlis 2002). Conversely, communities located near fire events may benefit from expanded employment opportunities created when fire management organizations move into an area and hire local people (Machlis 2002). The influx of fire management crews into communities has the potential to generate revenue for the community by purchasing goods from local stores and patronizing local businesses.

Fires pose growing threats to the physical and psychological wellbeing of communities as a whole and individuals within communities. By 2002, about 1800 communities in the wildland-urban interface of the United States were targeted for fuel reduction programs. These communities are in locations where there is a high risk for disastrous wildland fires and the consequent effects on physical and psychosocial health.

Scientific research on the human health consequences of forest fires is relatively new and contains numerous limitations (research on the composition of biomass smoke only began around 1970 [Ward and Hardy 1991]). Most research on smoke effects investigates single constituents of smoke such as aldehydes, PAHs, particulate matter, hydrocarbons, inorganic gases, and trace gases. Much of this research tests the effects of these pollutants on human health from sources other than forest fires such as automobiles and industrial production. Also, most studies look at short-term health outcomes, while very few studies of the long-term health effects of exposure to biomass smoke exist. Another limitation of research is that smoke itself is spatially variable and smoke has variable health impacts on local populations. But, our understanding of the health effects of biomass smoke is increasing due to a growing interest in this subject among the general public, within the scientific community, and among policy makers and land managers.

It is unclear whether the net effects of forest fires on human health are adverse, beneficial, or inconsequential. Most investigations of this topic attempt to document adverse effects with little or no attention to beneficial effects. Yet, beneficial changes in interpersonal relations, and in socio-cultural, economic, and political systems can occur as a consequence of forest fires. Thissections in the fire encyclopediarelated to the health effects of fire focus on research that demonstrates the adverse biophysical effects of biomass smokesince the larger portion of researchers approach the topic from this angle. Some researchers ask, “What are the harmful effects of x constituent of biomass smoke?” or “How did y fire impact the health of local people?” If they have not been able to demonstrate significant negative impacts, researchers conclude that the effects of forest fires are inconsequential.

Research from a variety of disciplines is used to estimate the health impacts of forest fires. Epidemiologic studies on the health consequences of indoor air pollution created by the burning of biomass fuel for cooking, heating, and light offer insight into the health impacts of biomass smoke created by forest fires (Larson and Koenig 1994). Studies in the field of animal toxicology provide information about the impacts of biomass smoke on the health of animals that can be extrapolated with caution to expand our knowledge of human health impacts. In animal toxicologyresearch on the effects of the smoke from burning pine on dogs, researchers observed changes in epithelial cells that predict the development of pulmonary hypertension which increases heart attack risks (Larson and Koenig 1994). Damages to tracheobronchial epithelial cells appear in rabbits that breathe smoke from burning white pine (Larson and Koenig 1994). Enzymatic changes predicting the development of pulmonary hypertension occurred in dogs that were forced to breathe highly concentrated smoke from burning pine (Larson and Koenig 1994). Significant changes in macrophages occurred in rabbits that were forced to breath smoke from burning Douglas fir (Larson and Koenig 1994). In the field of anthropology, researchers are interested in contemporary burning practices of communities around the world (e.g, Vayda 1999). Anthropologists of Native North America have reconstructed burning practices of prehistoric and early-historic communities within the context of overall ecological management regimes (e.g., Krech 1999).

Overall, opinions on the health impacts of smoke from forest fires are equivocal: some authors have found evidence that biomass smoke is injurious (e.g., Grant 1988), other authors have found evidence that biomass smoke does not have significant adverse health effects (McMahon 1999; Van Lear and Waldrop 1989). Some researchers argue that public health risks from biomass smoke are minimal because air pollution stemming from forest fires rarely if ever exceeds limits set by governmental and non-governmental agencies (McMahon 1999). Other authors argue that serious damages to public health, including chronic disease and premature death, occur even when air pollution levels are below the limits set by governmental agencies (EPA 1998; Schwartz and others 1993).

The ambiguity in the research literature is due both to the lack of and inherent difficulties with research on this topic. Research on this topic should continue in order to fill some of the voids in existing knowledge. There is a need for more research that investigates individuals and communities in areas where wildland and prescribed burns occur. These studies ought to consider smoke as people actually encounter it during forest fires; that is, a whole, complex mixture of interacting chemicals and particles. Among the current literature, there is a lack of information about the perceptions of individuals. Future research on the health impacts of fire could be improved by using ethnographic methods. Research would be much more textured if it included accounts of the ways that individuals interpret their experiences with forest fires. Each facet of the health-fire relationship ought to be contextualized in a particular fire event and a particular environment. To be accurate, future research ought to coordinate the characteristics of particular fires with local environmental traits, in addition to local human conditions.

Our present understanding is somewhat reductionistic and gives disproportionate attention to the physiological effects of fire. A more holistic view of the health impacts of forest fires would investigate psychological, social, cultural, economic, and political consequences as well. Future investigations should pay more attention to links between physiological and other types of effects of forest fires on people (e.g., psychological, economic, cultural). A holistic presentation requires both scaling up by contextualizing biomedical and chemical analyses and scaling down by adding fine-grained understandings of individuals’ lived experiences. In the future, researchers could expand their methodological repertoire and use integrative models to better understand relationships between people and fire.

This section is currently in development.

Picnic in the Nantahala National Forest, North Carolina in 1939

Both wildland and prescribed fires have economic implications for private, state, and federal landowners  as well as for consumers of forest products and users of forest landscapes (Moffat and Greene 2002, Mercer and others 2000).  Governments are routinely charged with protection, suppression and recovery expenses for wildfires, while the risks and insurance costs for homes and timber are borne by individuals. Prescribed fires are paid for by the landowner, who must also assume the costs of an escaped prescribed fire. Federal Wildland Fire Policy requires cost-effective fire management programs.

The ecological context of a fire location influences fuel levels, which affects fire intensity, severity, and size, and thus economic outcomes.  These economic outcomes are also influenced by the cultural, political, and social contexts of the local community and the agencies and organizations involved in the fire planning, suppression and recovery.  Although both prescribed and wildfires are referred to as ‘forest fires’, there are differences in the economic consequences, both costs and benefits, of prescribed fire versus wildland fires.  Prescribed burning is intentionally designed and managed to enhance particular resource values. The effect of wildfires on forest resources is less controllable, and thus the economic consequences are less controllable.

A variety of economic phenomena are associated with forest fires, ranging from smoke effects on accident rates to loss of endangered species habitat.  Disturbances to the ecosystem resulting from both wildfire and prescribed fire are followed by potential regeneration of resources.  The spatial and temporal complexity of both types of forest fires leads to differential effects on resources and people, and, like other natural catastrophes, can redistribute wealth within communities by transferring between different classes of consumers and producers (Holmes 1991, Prestemon and Holmes 2000).

This section will contain information on:

• incentives for wildfire r