Abstract
The use of wildfire to accomplish natural resource based outcomes has been an allowedpractice within US wildfire policy for over 50 years. Despite this, the scale of implementing
wildfires with this strategy falls far short of those wildfires managed with a full suppression
strategy, which is the dominant US wildfire response paradigm. Research has suggested that
increasing the scale of wildfires managed to achieve resource benefits may help reduce the ‘fire
deficit’ and increase the resilience of ecosystems to catastrophic wildfire outcomes. However,
decision makers are often reluctant to assume the risk that breaking the suppression paradigm
incurs. This dissertation presents three studies that examine the decision making process that
US Forest Service agency administrators and their fire management staff consider whe deciding
to manage a wildfire to achieve resource benefit or not. The first study conducted a review of
the literature pertaining to decision making processes in this context, however it was limited to
research conducted before the 2009 federal wildfire policy update. The second study examines
the use of the Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS). It specifically probes how US
Forest Service employees leverage WFDSS to help make decisions during wildfire incidents, and
also explores their perspectives with the use of WFDSS and wildfire managed to achieve
resource objectives. The final study largely builds on the first, expanding the decision factor set
and updating it to the post-2009 wildfire policy context. While the first study was a literature
review, the second two studies both were conducted by interviewing participants currently
employed by the Forest Service. All three studies were thematically analyzed using qualitative
data analysis methodologies; principally thematic analysis rooted in the practice of Grounded
Theory. The conclusions from all three studies support the notion that wildfire decision making
is complex and must consider many divergent, sometimes contradictory, and often uncertain
factors. The level of complexity and uncertainty coupled with external pressures, internal
cultures, and personal risk appetites appears to support the conclusion that choosing to manage
a wildfire to attain resource based objectives is a riskier decision that deciding to suppress it.
Risk is derived from uncertainty in the outcome, lack of comfort or resources to manage it,
previous bad experiences, or loss of sociopolitical credibility. I provide a set of conclusions that
supports using a framework to assist decision makers to choose the correct course of action for
any wildfire that is considering of the most important and salient decision factors relevant to
their current wildfire scenario.