{"@context":{"@language":"en","Affiliation":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#departmentOrSchool","AggregatedSourceRepository":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider","Citation":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierCitation","Contributor":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/contributor","Creator":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator","DateAvailable":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","DateIssued":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","Description":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description","DigitalResourceOriginalRecord":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO","FullText":"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note","Genre":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType","IsShownAt":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt","Language":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language","PeerReviewStatus":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#peerReviewStatus","Provider":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider","Publisher":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher","PublisherDOI":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#publisherDOI","Rights":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights","RightsURI":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#rightsURI","ScholarlyLevel":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#scholarLevel","Subject":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/subject","Title":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title","Type":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type","URI":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierURI","SortDate":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/date"},"Affiliation":[{"@value":"Forestry, Faculty of","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Medicine, Faculty of","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Other UBC","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Non UBC","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Forest and Conservation Sciences, Department of","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Population and Public Health (SPPH), School of","@language":"en"}],"AggregatedSourceRepository":[{"@value":"DSpace","@language":"en"}],"Citation":[{"@value":"Fire 1 (2): 27 (2018)","@language":"en"}],"Contributor":[{"@value":"BC Centre for Disease Control","@language":"en"}],"Creator":[{"@value":"Bowman, David M. J. S.","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Daniels, Lori D.","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Johnston, Fay H.","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Williamson, Grant J.","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Jolly, W. Matt","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Magzamen, Sheryl","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Rappold, Ana G.","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Brauer, Michael (Of University of British Columbia)","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Henderson, Sarah B.","@language":"en"}],"DateAvailable":[{"@value":"2019-06-21T17:03:56Z","@language":"en"}],"DateIssued":[{"@value":"2018-08-09","@language":"en"}],"Description":[{"@value":"Sustainable fire management has eluded all industrial societies. Given the growing number and magnitude of wildfire events, prescribed fire is being increasingly promoted as the key to reducing wildfire risk. However, smoke from prescribed fires can adversely affect public health. We propose that the application of air quality standards can lead to the development and adoption of sustainable fire management approaches that lower the risk of economically and ecologically damaging wildfires while improving air quality and reducing climate-forcing emissions. For example, green fire breaks at the wildland\u2013urban interface (WUI) can resist the spread of wildfires into urban areas. These could be created through mechanical thinning of trees, and then maintained by targeted prescribed fire to create biodiverse and aesthetically pleasing landscapes. The harvested woody debris could be used for pellets and other forms of bioenergy in residential space heating and electricity generation. Collectively, such an approach would reduce the negative health impacts of smoke pollution from wildfires, prescribed fires, and combustion of wood for domestic heating. We illustrate such possibilities by comparing current and potential fire management approaches in the temperate and environmentally similar landscapes of Vancouver Island in British Columbia, Canada and the island state of Tasmania in Australia.","@language":"en"}],"DigitalResourceOriginalRecord":[{"@value":"https:\/\/circle.library.ubc.ca\/rest\/handle\/2429\/70726?expand=metadata","@language":"en"}],"FullText":[{"@value":"fireConcept PaperCan Air Quality Management Drive SustainableFuels Management at the TemperateWildland\u2013Urban Interface?David M. J. S. Bowman 1,*, Lori D. Daniels 2, Fay H. Johnston 3 ID , Grant J. Williamson 1 ID ,W. Matt Jolly 4 ID , Sheryl Magzamen 5 ID , Ana G. Rappold 6, Michael Brauer 7 ID andSarah B. Henderson 7,8 ID1 School of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia;grant.williamson@utas.edu.au2 Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, The University of British Columbia,Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada; lori.daniels@ubc.ca3 Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia;fay.johnston@utas.edu.au4 US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT 59808, USA;mjolly@fs.fed.us5 Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences, Colorado State University,Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA; sheryl.magzamen@colostate.edu6 US Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory,Environmental Public Health Division, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA;rappold.ana@epamail.epa.gov7 School of Population and Public Health, The University of British Columbia,Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada; michael.brauer@ubc.ca (M.B.); sarah.henderson@bccdc.ca (S.B.H.)8 Environmental Health Services, British Columbia Centre for Disease Control,Vancouver, BC V5Z 4R4, Canada* Correspondence: david.bowman@utas.edu.au; Tel.: +61-3-6226-1943Received: 30 May 2018; Accepted: 7 August 2018; Published: 9 August 2018\u0001\u0002\u0003\u0001\u0004\u0005\u0006\u0007\b\u0001\u0001\u0002\u0003\u0004\u0005\u0006\u0007Abstract: Sustainable fire management has eluded all industrial societies. Given the growing numberand magnitude of wildfire events, prescribed fire is being increasingly promoted as the key toreducing wildfire risk. However, smoke from prescribed fires can adversely affect public health.We propose that the application of air quality standards can lead to the development and adoptionof sustainable fire management approaches that lower the risk of economically and ecologicallydamaging wildfires while improving air quality and reducing climate-forcing emissions. For example,green fire breaks at the wildland\u2013urban interface (WUI) can resist the spread of wildfires into urbanareas. These could be created through mechanical thinning of trees, and then maintained by targetedprescribed fire to create biodiverse and aesthetically pleasing landscapes. The harvested woody debriscould be used for pellets and other forms of bioenergy in residential space heating and electricitygeneration. Collectively, such an approach would reduce the negative health impacts of smokepollution from wildfires, prescribed fires, and combustion of wood for domestic heating. We illustratesuch possibilities by comparing current and potential fire management approaches in the temperateand environmentally similar landscapes of Vancouver Island in British Columbia, Canada and theisland state of Tasmania in Australia.Keywords: fire management; fuels management; wildfire; prescribed fire; mechanical thinning;green fire breaks; smoke; air pollution; public health; air quality regulationFire 2018, 1, 27; doi:10.3390\/fire1020027 www.mdpi.com\/journal\/fireFire 2018, 1, 27 2 of 151. IntroductionUnlike other natural hazards, landscape fires can be both started and suppressed by humans [1](see Table 1 for our definitions of terms). Globally, Indigenous peoples have inhabited flammablelandscapes for thousands of years using naturally ignited and intentionally set fires in subsistenceeconomies that sustained biodiversity [1]. Colonization has disrupted these socio-ecological traditions,and no industrial economy has achieved such sustainable existence with landscape fire [2]. Indeed,fire management is increasingly characterized as being in crisis in many flammable landscapes acrossthe world. This is due to a constellation of factors, including rapid expansion of the wildland\u2013urbaninterface (WUI), recent wildfires exceeding suppression capabilities, and climate change driving longerand more extreme wildfire seasons [3]. Accordingly, there is increasing recognition of the need formore sustainable management of fuels, particularly at the WUI.Table 1. Definitions of terms as used in this work, logically organized by broad category.Category Term DefinitionTypesofFireandSourcesofSmoke Landscape fire Any fire burning on the landscape, regardless of its causePrescribed fire Fire intentionally set and managed on the landscape to reduce wildfire risk,achieve various ecological goals, and sustain or restore biodiversityWildfire Fire unintentionally burning on the landscape (and sometimes into humansettlements), which can have natural or anthropogenic causesSlash burning Burning of debris to regenerate logged forests or cleared landPile burning Collection of debris from logging and land clearing into piles on the landscape,and subsequent burning of those piles to reduce material and wildfire riskResidential wood burning Use of whole or pelletized harvested wood to provide residential space heatingBioenergyGeneration of heat and electricity for domestic and industrial consumption usingwoody debris (raw or pelletized) from logging, land clearing,and other industriesWood pellets A common fuel type for generation of bioenergy (also known as densifiedbiomass fuels)Fire,Fuel,andLandscapeManagementFire management The control of landscape fires through land management and firesuppression techniquesFuels management The reduction of fuels to reduce landscape fire risk and intensitySustainable fire management Management of fire and fuels such that ecological processes, biodiversity,and human values are maintainedWildland-urban interface (WUI) The landscape interface where native vegetation and urban areas intermingleWildfire risk Probability that wildfire will occur in any given season, with particular focus ondestructive intersection with the WUIFire hazard The quantity and combustibility of wildland fuelsFire weatherA group of meteorological conditions that affect the spread of landscape fire,including air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, precipitation,and droughtFire break A natural or artificial gap in vegetation or other combustible material that acts toslow or stop the progress of a wildfireGreen fire break A natural or planted belt of low-flammability vegetation designed to impede thespread of landscape firesMechanical thinning Manual and machine-assisted removal of fuels from the landscapeWoody debris Waste wood produced by logging, land clearing, and other activities onthe landscapeBiodiversity Diversity and abundance of lifeforms across all taxonomic ranks and phylogeniesAirQualitySmoke A complex type of air pollution comprising particles and gases formed byincomplete combustion of wildland fuels or harvested woodFine particulate matter (PM2.5) Particles less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameterAir pollution The presence or introduction of a harmful substance or substances into theambient airAir quality The degree to which the ambient air is free of pollutionAir quality regulation Statutes and rules designed to improve and protect air quality consideringfactors such as achievability, environmental impacts, and human healthAir quality standards Ambient concentrations of specific air pollutants that are permissible accordingto air quality regulationsAir quality management Activities undertaken by an agency or group of agencies to improve air qualityThere is growing acceptance among fire managers that prescribed fire, the intentional andmanaged application of landscape fire, can reduce wildfire risk [4]. Nonetheless, this approach hasa number of downsides, including: (1) risk of escaped prescribed fires accidentally destroying theFire 2018, 1, 27 3 of 15property and infrastructure they were intended to protect. This means that each operation carries theheavy transactional costs of negotiating with multiple land tenures, other stakeholders, and insuranceproviders [5]; (2) blunted effectiveness of prescribed fire during extreme fire weather, becausereduced fuel loads do not limit wildfire spread in hot, dry, and windy conditions [6]; (3) shiftingof the timing and\/or number of days available for prescribed fire under a changing climate [7\u20139];and (4) management of smoke pollution to minimize its public health impacts [10]. Of these drawbacks,the latter is putting increasing constraint on the use of prescribed fire as the adverse effects of smokeon human health become clearer [11\u201314].Much like air pollution from other sources, smoke pollution from landscape fires has beenassociated with increased human morbidity and mortality in exposed populations [11,12]. Indeed,thousands of studies describing the harmful effects of air pollution from multiple sources have drivenregulations, policies, and technologies to reduce emissions from vehicles, industry, power generation,and space heating. Such advances have yielded significant health and economic benefits overrecent decades because they reduce the immediate harms and the burden of chronic diseaseassociated with ongoing air pollution exposures [15]. Smoke from landscape fires is less amenableto control, but also leads to health risks. Smoke from wildfires is typically excluded from air qualityregulations, while smoke from prescribed fires is typically included. Prescribed fires can thus lead tonon-compliance with air quality standards [16].In response to major wildfire disasters there has been a marked increase in the use of prescribedfire surrounding cities in southern Australia, with associated increases in air pollution. The trade-offsbetween prescribed and wildfire smoke are poorly understood and demand transdisciplinary researchthat considers human health, fire risk reduction, and biodiversity effects [17,18]. Nonetheless,smoke from prescribed fires can cause serious health harms. For example, Broome et al. (2016) haveshown that six days of prescribed fire smoke in the Sydney Basin in May 2016 resulted in 14 deathsand 91 hospital admissions [14].Policies to manage tensions caused by smoke from prescribed fires are evolving worldwide. In theUnited States (US), enforcement of the regulatory Clean Air Act requires jurisdictions exceeding theNational Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to implement air quality management plans thatmay restrict or prevent the use of prescribed fire [19,20]. As such, some air quality regulators may havethe authority to shut down prescribed fires, or to issue large fines. We highlight this legislation becausethe current approach to air quality in the US is arguably the most rigorous and effective global example.Among fire managers, there is a concern that smoke regulation is hindering effective fuels treatmentwith prescribed fire [21]. For instance, North et al. (2015) recently suggested that the US EnvironmentalProtection Agency should exempt prescribed fire smoke in the same way that it exempts wildfiresmoke, which can be regarded as an unmanageable exceptional event [22]. Here, we present analternative perspective. Rather than exempting prescribed fires from existing air quality regulations,we argue that adapting and refining those regulations and integrating them with fire managementcan act to protect human health and to drive improvements in fuels management at the WUI acrosstemperate flammable landscapes.We present two case studies of fire-prone landscapes in temperate regions working towards theseobjectives: Vancouver Island, Canada and Tasmania, Australia (Figure 1). Both of these islands aresimilar with respect to size, climate, and human populations, but they differ with respect to howthey manage fuels and wildfire risk. These examples offer a valuable illustration of the diversity incontemporary approaches to fire management and air quality protection. It is important to note atthe outset that we are not promoting the Canadian, Australian, or US system of smoke management.Rather, building on these case studies, we are arguing that elements of all three could be strengthenedand leveraged to drive sustainable fuels management at the temperate WUI.Fire 2018, 1, 27 4 of 151   Figure 1. Geographic context of Vancouver Island, Canada (left), and Tasmania, Australia (right).The broad vegetation cover of these temperate forested islands is controlled by elevation (A,B) andprecipitation gradients (C,D). A feature of these islands is their complex wildland\u2013urban interfaces (E,F).The locations of the capitals of British Columbia (Victoria) and Tasmania (Hobart), and the regionaltowns of Port Alberni (population 18,000) and Launceston (population 85,000), are also indicated (A,B).Note that the vegetation maps do not depict intermixes of Garry woodlands in coastal Douglas-fir ordifferentiate between dry and wet Eucalyptus forest.2. Vancouver Island\u2014Reliance on Mechanical Thinning and Pile BurningVancouver Island (area = 31,285 km2, population = 760,000) is located off the west coast ofmainland British Columbia, Canada. It is heavily forested and spans a steep precipitation gradientfrom west to east (Figure 1C). Prior to settlement by Europeans, old-growth temperate rainforestscomposed of cedars and hemlocks covered much of the island, with Douglas-fir forests and Garryoak woodlands dominating the east coast [23]. These vegetation assemblages developed during theHolocene, as recently as 6000 years ago [24], and have been shaped by Indigenous use of landscape firein the past 2000 years [25]. Fire weather on the island is controlled by a seasonal shift in the subtropicalhigh-pressure cell northward along the Pacific coast, which results in a substantive summer waterdeficit. Summer high-pressure cells result in strong outflow winds, low precipitation, and low relativehumidity, which elevate wildfire risk. The occurrence of dangerous fire weather has been increasing inthe recent past (Figure 2A), with extreme wildfire danger persisting for more than 60 days in four ofthe past 20 years. Prolonged drought and high temperatures in 2015 saw a record 25,000 ha of forestsburned in the Coast Fire Zone of British Columbia, which includes Vancouver Island.Fire 2018, 1, 27 5 of 15Figure 2. Trends in wildfire season length for Victoria, British Columbia (A) and Hobart, Tasmania (B)from 1986 to 2016. While there is considerable inter-annual variation in an ensemble metric of wildfireseason length based on previous work [7] (expressed as a standardized anomaly, standard deviationfrom the 1979 to 2013 historic mean), these data show a steady increase in response to climate change.Victoria (population = 370,000) is the capital city of British Columbia, which is surrounded byforested parks and the watersheds that supply municipal drinking water (Figure 1). The resultingWUI is complex and dispersed across approximately 700 km2. Records indicate that almost 80% of thewildfires around greater Victoria have been ignited by humans [18]. These fires have typically burnedsmall areas due to effective detection and suppression [26], but the wildfire risk is increasing due toclimate change, increased anthropogenic ignitions, and greater abundance of hazardous wildland fuelsresulting from wildfire exclusion and regeneration of second-growth forests after logging (Figure 2A).Community wildfire protection plans have been developed and are being implemented. These includeraising public awareness of wildfire risk, improving the resistance of homes and critical infrastructure,reducing WUI fuels using mechanical thinning, and creating fire breaks at strategic locations inthe landscape [27].Historically, wildfires have been a minor cause of air pollution events on Vancouver Island,although this may change with increased burning driven by climate change. The majority of smokepollution is derived from residential wood burning and forest management practices. Approximatelyone third of homes use wood as a primary or supplementary source of space heating, which is drivenby its availability, affordability, and Canadian tradition [28]. This generates a substantial amount ofair pollution. Indeed, a 2015 emissions inventory for the Comox Valley airshed indicated that 35%of all fine particulate matter (PM2.5) was from residential wood burning [29]. Concurrent ambientair quality studies used levoglucosan [30] concentrations to confirm that woodsmoke is a majorcontributor to the total PM2.5 in this region [31,32]. It is important to note that the topography andclimate of Vancouver Island favor the pooling of smoke in valleys and along the coast, particularlyunder inversion conditions. This is well-illustrated by the city of Port Alberni, where severe airpollution occurs in the cooler months due to residential wood burning (Figure 3A). Although theprovince recently updated its Solid Fuel Burning Domestic Appliance Regulation [33] to address smokepollution, this has not effectively improved air quality to date. One barrier is the expense of convertingto more efficient stoves and the cost and availability of cleaner-burning wood pellets.Another major source of smoke pollution on Vancouver Island is the burning of woody debrisgenerated by logging and land clearing, mostly in October and November. Traditionally, woody debriswas managed by slash burning, where prescribed fires were applied across the cleared landscape.However, this practice has now been replaced by piling woody debris along roadsides and burningthe piles under controlled conditions. In some areas, pile burning is also used for debris created bymechanical thinning to reduce wildfire risk at the WUI. Pile burning regularly causes breaches of theprovincial 24-h air quality objective for PM2.5, which is 25 \u00b5g\/m3. Although ignitions are typicallyscheduled to minimize the air quality impacts, piles often burn for several days once lit, and smoke canaffect large populations over extensive areas. For instance, pile burning contributes 45% to all PM2.5emissions in the aforementioned Comox Valley, though its air quality impacts vary with meteorologicalFire 2018, 1, 27 6 of 15conditions [29]. Over the past 25 years, the province has developed and updated its Open BurningSmoke Control Regulation [34] but, once again, air quality problems persist.Figure 3. Seasonal and diurnal patterns of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations in PortAlberni, British Columbia (A) and Launceston, Tasmania (B), averaged from 2009\u20132016 measurementswith beta attenuation monitors. During the winter months (October\u2013March in British Columbia,April\u2013September in Tasmania) residential wood burning is the primary source of PM2.5, with morningand evening burning creating the characteristic hourglass figure [32] and dwarfing the effects of smokefrom prescribed and wild fires in the summer months. The corresponding mean monthly maximumand minimum air temperatures for these locations are indicated (C,D).One alternative to pile burning is the conversion of woody debris into wood pellets or otherforms of bioenergy. On the mainland of British Columbia, a large wood pellet industry has developedto salvage forests killed by bark beetles [35]. These facilities could also pelletize woody debris fromforestry and mechanical fuel treatments, but Vancouver Island does not yet have a wood pellet plant.Compared with conventional appliances for residential wood burning, modern pellet stoves use lessfuel to generate the same amount of heat while emitting much less smoke pollution [36]. Combined witheffective incentives for use of residential pellet stoves (as per Johnston et al. [37]), approaches to replacepile burning with pellet production could improve local air quality, particularly in the winter months,improve health, and mitigate the greenhouse gas impacts through more efficient combustion [38,39].3. Tasmania\u2014Reliance on Prescribed FireThe island state of Tasmania (area = 68,000 km2, population = 515,000) is located to the south ofthe eastern mainland of Australia. Like Vancouver Island, it is dominated by flammable vegetationthat spans a steep precipitation gradient from the humid west coast to the dry east coast (Figure 1D).Human set fires have been used across the island for at least 35,000 years, creating a complex mosaicof fire-prone treeless plains, eucalypt savannas, and tall eucalypt forests that integrate with thewildfire-sensitive temperate rainforest [40]. The capital city of Hobart (population = 225,000) istopographically constrained by an estuary at the end of a valley with steep slopes. This createsa long and complex WUI spanning approximately 120 km. The valley periodically funnels strong,hot, northerly winds originating from the center of the Australian continent. These become extremelyFire 2018, 1, 27 7 of 15dry due to the Foehen effect, which is caused by the high plateau in the middle of Tasmania, creatingdangerous fire weather [41]. In 1967, such extreme conditions sustained a wildfire that destroyed theouter suburbs of Hobart and threatened the center of the city.Overall, the urban and physical environments expose Hobart to the risk of catastrophic wildfires,which has been recognized by disaster planners [42]. Government guidelines for reducing wildfire riskinclude modifying structures to resist ember attack and landscaping to reduce the density of flammablevegetation around buildings. However, these guidelines are not enforceable for existing structures.In response to past wildfire disasters in Tasmania [43], there has been increased use of prescribed fireto reduce wildfire risk in dry Eucalyptus forests, which typically occur on equatorial slopes and in rainshadow areas around Hobart. This has been combined with the creation of networks of fire breaksto provide additional protection for urban developments. It is important to note that prescribed firecannot be applied in wet Eucalyptus forests, which typically occur on polar slopes and in moist areas,because they only become flammable under dangerous fire weather conditions [44]. Further, the mosteffective prescribed fire at the WUI must be applied around assets that require protection, an approachthat necessarily causes smoke pollution in populated areas [44].Continued lengthening of the fire season associated with global climate change is an addedcomplexity (Figure 2B), which reduces the number of days on which prescribed fires can be controlledand the smoke is less likely to be dispersed [45]. Like elsewhere in southern Australia, prescribed fireis controversial in Tasmania because of smoke pollution [46], but mechanical thinning is not widelyused at the WUI because of public opposition to removal of trees and associated effects on naturalamenity values [47\u201349]. Another source of smoke pollution in the autumn months is slash burningin the woody debris created by logging Eucalyptus forests. Even though the biological basis of thissilvicultural practice is poorly understood, foresters assert that slash burning is necessary for effectiveregeneration of fire-dependent Eucalyptus forests, and that smoke is a necessary side effect [50\u201352].Smoke from landscape fires and residential wood burning is recognized as a significantenvironmental health issue in Tasmania [37,53]. Like Vancouver Island, the topography and climatefavor nighttime pooling of ambient smoke through the drainage of cold air into valleys, which affectsnumerous towns and cities. Although prescribed fires are applied on moderate fire weather days,these are commonly associated with poor smoke dispersion due to nighttime temperature inversionsand calm conditions. As such, air quality concerns constrain the use of prescribed fires during theweather windows in which they can be controlled. Tasmanian fire managers currently employ a biddingsystem for the right to use prescribed fire. This system is based on the predicted smoke emissions anddispersion for the number, size, and location of the planned fires. It aims to prevent exceedances ofthe 25 \u00b5g\/m3 national air quality standard for 24-h average concentrations of PM2.5, and is generallyconsidered to be effective [54]. Additionally, communications strategies are being developed to helpsusceptible individuals manage smoke exposures and health impacts using mainstream media, socialmedia, and a smart-phone application [55].Like Vancouver Island, Tasmanian air quality is also affected by smoke from residential woodburning [37,53]. Approximately 30% of homes are heated by wood, reflecting the cool climate and theabundance of timber [56,57]. Affordable fuel is an important consideration given the low socioeconomicstatus of the population, but many residential wood burning appliances are poorly designed and operated.Indeed, emissions from these appliances are the only substantial cause of poor air quality in Tasmaniaduring the cold season. This is well-illustrated by the severe winter smoke pollution in Launceston(Figure 3B), the second-largest city in Tasmania. Wintertime air quality here was significantly improved bya government scheme that enabled households to swap residential wood burning appliances for electricheaters, which resulted in demonstrable public health benefits [37]. In comparison, public educationprograms designed to improve air quality by improving wood burning practices have had limitedsuccess. Space heating using low emissions technologies, such as pellet stoves, can also reduce smokepollution [58]. However, there is currently limited production of pellets in Tasmania and, consequently,limited adoption of pellet stoves. This situation is unlikely to change without increased incentives.Fire 2018, 1, 27 8 of 154. Lessons from Vancouver Island and TasmaniaIn Tasmania, prescribed fires are the predominant method of fuels management [59], whereasin British Columbia fuels are commonly managed by mechanical thinning and pile burning [27,60].In Tasmania, the state has committed an annual expenditure of AU$9 (~US$6.5) million per yearfrom 2018 to 2022 on fuels reduction, nearly all by prescribed fire [61]. By contrast, from 2004\u20132014,the province of British Columbia spent CA$78 (~US$60) million on mechanical thinning of 68,883 ha atthe WUI of high-risk communities, which accounted for less than 10% of the 1.7 million ha identifiedas being at moderate to high risk [27]. Unlike Tasmania, there is a well-developed wood pellet industryin British Columbia based around salvaging woody debris that cannot be used for other purposes.Strategic combination of elements from both settings could lead to a system of fuels management thatwould reduce wildfire risk at the WUI, increase resilience to wildfire, improve air quality, and achievesustainable human co-existence with flammable landscapes. Mechanical thinning is rarely used inAustralia compared with North America, but research following the disastrous Black Saturday firesfound that removing trees within 40 m of houses had a larger effect on reducing property losses thantreatment with prescribed fire [62]. A similar study in California reported a similar result [63].In addition to aesthetic concerns [48], a major constraint on mechanical thinning is the cost,which exceeds that of using prescribed fire, albeit this depends on any income received from harvestedtrees, and whether fire is used to reduce fine fuel loads [64,65]. One critical contributor to highmechanical thinning costs is the lack of market for the woody debris that cannot be used for lumber orpaper production. In principle, it is possible to use these fuels to produce bioenergy that could be usedfor domestic and industrial purposes, including water heating, space heating, and electricity generationin surrounding communities [64,66,67]. Both mechanical thinning and bioenergy production aremature technologies, but they are rarely combined to manage wildfire risk because of the economicconstraints and lack of incentives [64]. In British Columbia, transportation costs and harvesting feesapplied to low-value woody debris create barriers to the development of a robust bioenergy industry.Reforms are needed to generate incentives for innovative use of woody debris to simultaneouslyreduce wildfire risks and smoke pollution. A similar argument can be made for policy reforms inforest practice and air quality management, combined with incentives and commercial innovation tophase out slash burning, which periodically causes severe air pollution.5. Leveraging Existing Air Quality Regulations to Drive Innovation in Fuels ManagementRegulation of air pollution led by the US, and eventually adopted elsewhere, has driven innovationto reduce emissions from vehicles, industry, and space heating, with marked improvement in regionaland urban air quality and corresponding benefits to human health [68,69]. Hubbell et al. (2009) describethe range of strategies and initiatives implemented as part of the US Clean Air Act and the impacts ofthose interventions on air quality [69]. They include: (1) the establishment of legally binding ambientair quality standards to better protect public health; (2) emissions standards for industrial sourcesand toxic pollutants; and (3) pollution control programs for vehicles, including technology-forcingemissions restrictions and fuel quality standards. More stringent requirements are implemented inareas not meeting the NAAQS (known as \u201cnonattainment\u201d areas), including the offset of emissionsfrom new industrial sources by reductions from other industrial sources. There are also clauses toprevent areas meeting air quality standards from slipping into nonattainment status. The 1990 USClean Air Act amendments were globally noteworthy for their adoption of innovative approaches,such as market-based initiatives and emissions cap-and-trade programs, as well as performance-basedstandards. Taken together, these and other initiatives have resulted in large benefits to populationhealth, such as measured increases in life expectancy [70,71], with the economic benefits consistentlyexceeding the regulatory costs [72].Here, we explicitly draw a parallel with these transformative effects on urban airsheds and humanhealth following legally enforceable clean air standards. Drawing on case studies in British Columbiaand Tasmania we suggest that regulatory frameworks can drive innovation in fuels management onFire 2018, 1, 27 9 of 15the temperate WUI if associated with appropriate incentives to reduce air pollution from wildfire,prescribed fire, and residential wood burning. We are not claiming that the current US system isperfectly suited to the challenges of wildfire and fuels management. Based on our experience inAustralia where there has been a sharp increase in prescribed fire, however, we are concerned thatderegulating smoke pollution from prescribed fires could lead to substantial worsening of air qualityand human health outcomes at the temperate WUI [14].Our concept (Figure 4) involves a combination of regulation and technological advancementsakin to the improvements in automobile emissions that followed the development and enforcement ofair quality regulations. Examples could include combining prescribed fire with mechanical thinning,promoting the adoption of efficient and low polluting stoves, ensuring housing developments atthe WUI are built to resist fire and are thermally efficient, establishing community bioenergy plants,and subsidization of the production of pellets from biomass harvested to reduce fire hazards. Clearly,approaches need be ecologically and socially specific to each context. Innovation could be furtherdriven by regulating air pollution from both wildfires and prescribed fires [21]. It is critical thatregulations and incentives to reduce smoke pollution do not lead to perverse outcomes wherebyeffective fuel management is frustrated in settings where there is minimal health risk. For example,when area-based fees for prescribed fires are decoupled from the actual risk of smoke exposure tosurrounding populations [9], such as fuels management conducted away from the WUI.Figure 4. The effects of smoke pollution on public heath can motivate fuels management, appropriatebuilt environment, and community engagement to achieve sustainable coexistence with flammablelandscapes. The status quo (left side) sharply contrasts a plausible fuels management scenario designedto drastically reduce smoke pollution (right side). Artwork credit to Jen Burgess.In Figure 4 we contrast current approaches (left side) with a plausible fire management scenariodesigned to drastically reduce smoke pollution (right side). Current fire management is based onaggressive and expensive suppression of high-intensity wildfires (top left circle), where mechanicalthinning combined with effective use of prescribed fire would favor lower-intensity wildfires that areless costly to manage (top right circle). The use of pile burning at the WUI to dispose of woody debris(second top left circle) would be replaced by the use of woody debris for production of bioenergyFire 2018, 1, 27 10 of 15(second top right circle). At the WUI, the dangerous intermix of houses with wildland fuels andthe reliance on inefficient residential wood burning (second bottom left circle) would be replacedwith urban areas planned and designed using fire resistant materials and appropriate landscaping,where bioenergy is used for electricity generation and pellet stoves (second bottom right circle).Urban environments presently affected by severe smoke pollution for which individuals and publichealth authorities are ill-prepared (bottom left circle) would become cleaner due to reduced smoke fromwildfires, prescribed fires, and residential wood burning, with better preparation though improvedpublic health communications and promotion of effective portable air cleaners [73] (bottom right circle).More fire resilient communities in a less combustible WUI would provide greater opportunity fornatural ignitions to burn without demanding large scale and costly fire suppression.While many would dismiss this vision as unrealistic due to the high costs and sociopoliticalchallenges associated with such landscape-wide transformation, the history of air quality managementand its public health benefits must be considered. Further, these criticisms need to be compared withthe extraordinary costs of wildfire disasters, including firefighting, asset losses, and indirect economicimpacts such as reduced tourism during wildfire events or smoke episodes. The estimated economiccost of exposure to smoke from landscape fires in the US over a four-year period is between US$10 toUS$100 billion [74]. In Tasmania, annual wildland firefighting costs jumped from AU$15 (~US$11)million in 2013 to over AU$52 (~US$39) million in 2016, due to the greater use of aircraft [42]. In theCanadian province of Alberta, the insurance costs for the 2016 Horse River wildfire, which burnedinto the city of Fort McMurray, have been estimated at CA$3.6 (~US$2.8) billion, while the totaleconomic impact has been estimated at CA$8.9 (US$6.8) billion [75]. The potential impacts of wildfirein British Columbia are understood to be similar to those in Alberta. Indeed, the 2017 season wasunprecedented in terms of area burned, cost of suppression, and duration and magnitude of smokepollution, demonstrating that the CA$78 (~US$60) million spent on strategic wildfire risk managementfrom 2004\u20132015 has been insufficient to safeguard communities. This is not due to lack of fundingfor disaster mitigation, however; during the same period the provincial government invested CA$17(~US$13) billion on seismic upgrades for schools, hospitals, roads, and bridges to reduce the impactsof imminent earthquakes [76]. One research priority should be an understanding the economic costsand benefits of different fire management approaches relative to wildfire, particularly with explicitconsideration of the costs of public health harms.We acknowledge that our emphasis on the public health impacts of smoke pollution has notexplicitly considered the greenhouse gas emissions associated with bioenergy technologies, nor thepositive role of landscape fire as a vital ecological process. Conceptually, a shift to wood pellets forresidential space heating would contribute to reduced fossil fuel use. In Europe and Asia wood pelletsare used as a renewable fuel to offset or replace greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. Indeed,this is a prime driver for wood pellet exports from Canada, but transport of wood pellets overseasrequires additional energy inputs compared with local use [77].We are not advocating the exclusion of prescribed fire or wildfire from naturally flammablelandscapes. Rather, we are advocating for judicial use of prescribed fire to optimize benefits relative tosmoke pollution costs. We strongly recommend moving away from land management practicesthat generate substantial smoke pollution, such as pile and slash burning. Research has shownthat appropriate combinations of mechanical thinning and prescribed fire are most effective atmitigating wildfire risk and then maintaining reduced wildfire risk [78]. We suggest mechanicalthinning combined with harvesting of woody debris for wood pellets and other forms of bioenergy.This would provide the opportunity for prescribed fires that generate less smoke and are more likely tomeet air quality standards, effectively mitigate wildfire risk, and promote biodiversity at the WUI andin the hinterlands. We acknowledge the need for development of prescribed fire regimes to mitigatewildfire risk and sustain biodiversity that is context-specific and involves trade-offs for differentspecies and ecological processes [79]. Biodiversity can be promoted through the creation of green firebreaks [80], by restoring plant communities, or by creating biodiverse novel ecosystems [81]. Further,Fire 2018, 1, 27 11 of 15landscape design principles at the WUI could be inspired by flammable landscapes managed byIndigenous people creating fire resistant, and biodiverse, vegetation mosaics that are maintained bynative herbivores and targeted prescribed fire [82].6. ConclusionsWhen compared with other natural disasters, such as major earthquakes, wildfires pose a relativelypredictable and manageable risk to human populations. The key to managing wildfire risk lies inroutine and ongoing fuels management at the WUI and in the hinterlands. An increasingly advocatedapproach for managing such fuels is the use of prescribed fire, which is constrained by its bureaucracy,efficacy, practicability, risk and liability, and smoke generation that is known to harm human health.Smoke from all sources necessarily intersects with regulatory frameworks. Therefore, air qualityregulations can be leveraged to promote alternate approaches to fire management at the temperateWUI. This could lead to more ecologically and economically sustainable practices that reduce smokepollution from residential wood burning, pile and slash burning, wildfire and prescribed fires, as wellas restoring or creating biodiverse green fire breaks. Cost-benefit analyses that explicitly consider theeconomic impacts of fire management and domestic smoke pollution on human health are neededas a key step in this process. Rather than exempting emissions from landscape fires, we suggest thatexisting air quality regulation can be used to drive innovation and investment to improve on currentfire management practices. For this approach to succeed, fire managers need to work closely withregulators to craft effective smoke management frameworks that protect public health, reduce fire riskat the WUI, and sustain biodiversity.Author Contributions: This article is based on presentations and discussion at the symposium \u201cFinding the balance:Wild fire prescribed fire, forest health, and public health\u201d held at The University of British Columbia (UBC) in April2016. DMJSB led the writing with input from all the authors. In addition, G.J.W. created the figures and S.B.H.conceived of and organized the symposium.Funding: The \u201cFinding the balance: Wild fire prescribed fire, forest health, and public health\u201d symposium was fundedby Health Canada (MOA#4500365369), the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies at UBC (DMJSB and FHJwere supported in part by International Visiting Research Scholar awards), and an Australian Research CouncilLinkage Grant (LLP130100146).Acknowledgments: We acknowledge support from the UBC School of Population and Public Health, UBC Facultyof Forestry, the BC Centre for Disease Control, and the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies. We especiallythank Negar Elmieh for her facilitation of discussions during a special workshop session.Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.Disclaimer: The research described in this article has been reviewed by the National Health and EnvironmentalEffects Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and been approved for publication. Approvaldoes not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency, nor does the mention oftrade names of commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.References1. Bowman, D.M.; Balch, J.; Artaxo, P.; Bond, W.J.; Cochrane, M.A.; D\u2019antonio, C.M.; DeFries, R.; Johnston, F.H.;Keeley, J.E.; Krawchuk, M.A. The human dimension of fire regimes on Earth. J. Biogeogr. 2011, 38, 2223\u20132236.[CrossRef] [PubMed]2. Moritz, M.A.; Batllori, E.; Bradstock, R.A.; Gill, A.M.; Handmer, J.; Hessburg, P.F.; Leonard, J.; McCaffrey, S.;Odion, D.C.; Schoennagel, T. Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature 2014, 515, 58\u201366. [CrossRef] [PubMed]3. Fischer, A.P.; Spies, T.A.; Steelman, T.A.; Moseley, C.; Johnson, B.R.; Bailey, J.D.; Ager, A.A.; Bourgeron, P.;Charnley, S.; Collins, B.M. Wildfire risk as a socioecological pathology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2016, 14, 276\u2013284.[CrossRef]4. Fernandes, P.M.; Botelho, H.S. A review of prescribed burning effectiveness in fire hazard reduction. Int. J.Wildland Fire 2003, 12, 117\u2013128. [CrossRef]5. Stephens, S.L.; Collins, B.M.; Biber, E.; Ful\u00e9, P.Z. US federal fire and forest policy: Emphasizing resilience indry forests. Ecosphere 2016, 7, 1\u201319. [CrossRef]Fire 2018, 1, 27 12 of 156. Price, O.F.; Bradstock, R.A. The efficacy of fuel treatment in mitigating property loss during wildfires:Insights from analysis of the severity of the catastrophic fires in 2009 in Victoria, Australia. J. Environ. Manag.2012, 113, 146\u2013157. [CrossRef] [PubMed]7. Jolly, W.M.; Cochrane, M.A.; Freeborn, P.H.; Holden, Z.A.; Brown, T.J.; Williamson, G.J.; Bowman, D.M.Climate-induced variations in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 1\u201311. [CrossRef][PubMed]8. Hennessy, K.; Lucas, C.; Nicholls, N.; Bathols, J.; Suppiah, R.; Ricketts, J. Climate Change Impacts on Fire-Weatherin South-East Australia; Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology: Melbourne, Australia, 2005; p. 92.9. Sneeuwjagt, R.J.; Kline, T.S.; Stephens, S.L. Opportunities for improved fire use and management inCalifornia: Lessons from Western Australia. Fire Ecol. 2013, 9, 14\u201325.10. Schweizer, D.; Cisneros, R. Forest fire policy: Change conventional thinking of smoke management toprioritize long-term air quality and public health. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2017, 10, 33\u201336. [CrossRef]11. Reid, C.E.; Brauer, M.; Johnston, F.H.; Jerrett, M.; Balmes, J.R.; Elliott, C.T. Critical review of health impactsof wildfire smoke exposure. Environ. Health Perspect. 2016, 124, 1334. [CrossRef] [PubMed]12. Liu, J.C.; Pereira, G.; Uhl, S.A.; Bravo, M.A.; Bell, M.L. A systematic review of the physical health impactsfrom non-occupational exposure to wildfire smoke. Environ. Res. 2015, 136, 120\u2013132. [CrossRef] [PubMed]13. Kim, Y.H.; Warren, S.H.; Krantz, Q.T.; King, C.; Jaskot, R.; Preston, W.T.; George, B.J.; Hays, M.D.; Landis, M.S.;Higuchi, M. Mutagenicity and lung toxicity of smoldering vs. flaming emissions from various biomass fuels:Implications for health effects from wildland fires. Environ. Health Perspect. 2018, 126. [CrossRef] [PubMed]14. Broome, R.A.; Johnston, F.H.; Horsley, J.; Morgan, G.G. A rapid assessment of the impact of hazard reductionburning around Sydney, May 2016. Med. J. Aust. 2016, 205, 407\u2013408. [CrossRef] [PubMed]15. Dominici, F.; Greenstone, M.; Sunstein, C.R. Particulate matter matters. Science 2014, 344, 257\u2013259. [CrossRef][PubMed]16. Haikerwal, A.; Reisen, F.; Sim, M.R.; Abramson, M.J.; Meyer, C.P.; Johnston, F.H.; Dennekamp, M. Impact ofsmoke from prescribed burning: Is it a public health concern? J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2015, 65, 592\u2013598.[CrossRef] [PubMed]17. Williamson, G.; Bowman, D.M.S.; Price, O.F.; Henderson, S.; Johnston, F. A transdisciplinary approach tounderstanding the health effects of wildfire and prescribed fire smoke regimes. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016, 11,125009. [CrossRef]18. Clode, D.; Elgar, M.A. Fighting fire with fire: Does a policy of broad-scale prescribed burning improvecommunity safety? Soc. Nat. Resour. 2014, 27, 1192\u20131199. [CrossRef]19. Hyde, J.C.; Yedinak, K.M.; Talhelm, A.F.; Smith, A.M.; Bowman, D.M.; Johnston, F.H.; Lahm, P.; Fitch, M.;Tinkham, W.T. Air quality policy and fire management responses addressing smoke from wildland fires inthe United States and Australia. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2017, 26, 347\u2013363. [CrossRef]20. Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington,DC, USA, 1998; p. 38.21. Engel, K.H. Perverse incentives: The case of wildfire smoke regulation. Ecol. LQ 2013, 40, 623. [CrossRef]22. North, M.; Stephens, S.; Collins, B.; Agee, J.; Aplet, G.; Franklin, J.; Ful\u00e9, P. Reform forest fire management.Science 2015, 349, 1280\u20131281. [CrossRef] [PubMed]23. Meidinger, D.; Pojar, J. Ecosystems of British Columbia. Special Report Series Number 6; Research Branch, Ministryof Forests: Victoria, BC, Canada, 1991; p. 330.24. Pellatt, M.G.; Hebda, R.J.; Mathewes, R.W. High-resolution Holocene vegetation history and climate fromHole 1034B, ODP leg 169S, Saanich Inlet, Canada. Mar. Geol. 2001, 174, 211\u2013222. [CrossRef]25. Brown, K.J.; Hebda, R.J. Ancient fires on southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada: A change incausal mechanisms at about 2000 ybp. Environ. Archaeol. 2002, 7, 1\u201312. [CrossRef]26. Provincial Strategic Threat Analysis: 2015 Wildfire Threat Analysis Component; BC Ministry of Forests, Lands andNatural Resource Operations; British Columbia Wildfire Service: Victoria, BC, Canada, 2015; p. 33.27. Fuel Management in the Wildland-Urban Interface: Special Report #43; BC Forest Practices Board: Victoria, BC, Canada,2015; p. 38.28. B\u00e9langer, D.; Gosselin, P.; Valois, P.; Abdous, B. Use of residential wood heating in a context of climatechange: A population survey in Qu\u00e9bec (Canada). BMC Public Health 2008, 8, 184. [CrossRef] [PubMed]29. Dailyde, L.; Boulton, J.; Trask, T. Particulate Matter Emissions Inventory for the Comox Valley 2015 Base Year.RWDI1700243; British Columbia Ministry of Environment: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2015; 50p.Fire 2018, 1, 27 13 of 1530. Simoneit, B.R.; Schauer, J.J.; Nolte, C.; Oros, D.R.; Elias, V.O.; Fraser, M.; Rogge, W.; Cass, G.R. Levoglucosan,a tracer for cellulose in biomass burning and atmospheric particles. Atmos. Environ. 1999, 33, 173\u2013182.[CrossRef]31. Weichenthal, S.; Kulka, R.; Lavigne, E.; van Rijswijk, D.; Brauer, M.; Villeneuve, P.J.; Stieb, D.; Joseph, L.;Burnett, R.T. Biomass burning as a source of ambient fine particulate air pollution and acute myocardialinfarction. Epidemiology 2017, 28, 329. [CrossRef] [PubMed]32. Hong, K.Y.; Weichenthal, S.; Saraswat, A.; King, G.H.; Henderson, S.B.; Brauer, M. Systematic identificationand prioritization of communities impacted by residential woodsmoke in British Columbia, Canada.Environ. Pollut. 2017, 220, 797\u2013806. [CrossRef] [PubMed]33. Government of British Columbia. Solid Fuel Burning Domestic Appliance Regulation; Government of BritishColumbia: Victoria, BC, Canada, 2016.34. Government of British Columbia. Open Burning Smoke Control Regulation; Government of British Columbia:Victoria, BC, Canada, 2016.35. Lamers, P.; Junginger, M.; Dymond, C.C.; Faaij, A. Damaged forests provide an opportunity to mitigateclimate change. GCB Bioenergy 2014, 6, 44\u201360. [CrossRef]36. B\u00f8lling, A.K.; Pagels, J.; Yttri, K.E.; Barregard, L.; Sallsten, G.; Schwarze, P.E.; Boman, C. Health effects ofresidential wood smoke particles: The importance of combustion conditions and physicochemical particleproperties. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 2009, 6, 29. [CrossRef] [PubMed]37. Johnston, F.H.; Hanigan, I.C.; Henderson, S.B.; Morgan, G.G. Evaluation of interventions to reduce airpollution from biomass smoke on mortality in Launceston, Australia: Retrospective analysis of dailymortality, 1994\u20132007. BMJ 2013, 346, e8446. [CrossRef] [PubMed]38. Robinson, D.L. Australian wood heaters currently increase global warming and health costs. Atmos. Pollut. Res.2011, 2, 267\u2013274. [CrossRef]39. Ozgen, S.; Caserini, S. Methane emissions from small residential wood combustion appliances: Experimentalemission factors and warming potential. Atmos. Environ. 2018, 189, 164\u2013173. [CrossRef]40. Thomas, I.; Cullen, P.; Fletcher, M.-S. Ecological drift or stable fire cycles in Tasmania: A resolution. Terra Aust.2010, 32, 341\u2013352.41. Fox-Hughes, P. Springtime fire weather in Tasmania, Australia: Two case studies. Weather Forecast. 2012, 27,379\u2013395. [CrossRef]42. White, C.; Remenyi, T.; McEvoy, D.; Trundle, A.; Corney, S. Tasmanian State Natural Disaster Risk Assessment;University of Tasmania: Hobart, TAS, Australia, 2016; p. 158.43. 2013 Tasmanian Bushfires Inquiry; Department of Premier and Cabinet: Hobart, TAS, Australia, 2013; p. 263.44. Furlaud, J.M.; Williamson, G.J.; Bowman, D.M. Simulating the effectiveness of prescribed burning at alteringwildfire behaviour in Tasmania, Australia. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2018, 27, 15\u201328. [CrossRef]45. Harris, R.M.B.; Remenyi, T.; Fox-Hughes, P.; Love, P.; Phillips, H.E.; Bindoff, N.L. An Assessment of theViability of Prescribed Burning as a Management Tool under a Changing Climate: A Tasmanian Case Study; ResearchForum at the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC & AFAC Conference; Rumsewicz, M., Ed.; Bushfire andNatural Hazards CRC: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2017.46. Lyth, A.; Spinaze, A.; Watson, P.; Johnston, F. Place, human agency and community resilience: Considerationsfor public health management of smoke from prescribed burning. Local Environ. 2018, in press.47. Leahy, B. Perceptions of risk and connection to landscape. Aust. J. Emerg. Manag. 2016, 31, 5.48. Gill, N.; Dun, O.; Brennan-Horley, C.; Eriksen, C. Landscape preferences, amenity, and bushfire risk in NewSouth Wales, Australia. Environ. Manag. 2015, 56, 738\u2013753. [CrossRef] [PubMed]49. Bushnell, S.; Balcombe, L.; Cottrell, A. Community and Fire Service Perceptions of Bushfire Issues inTamborine Mountain: What\u2019s the Difference? Aust. J. Emerg. Manag. 2007, 22, 3.50. Neyland, M.G.; Grove, S.J. A commentary on \u201cEucalyptus obliqua seedling growth in organic vs. mineralsoil horizons\u201d. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 346. [CrossRef] [PubMed]51. Barry, K.M.; Janos, D.P.; Bowman, D.M. Response: A commentary on \u201cEucalyptus obliqua seedling growthin organic vs. mineral soil horizons\u201d. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 52. [CrossRef] [PubMed]52. Barry, K.M.; Janos, D.P.; Nichols, S.; Bowman, D.M. Eucalyptus obliqua seedling growth in organic vs.mineral soil horizons. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 97. [CrossRef] [PubMed]Fire 2018, 1, 27 14 of 1553. Johnston, O.; Johnston, F.; Todd, J.; Williamson, G. Community-wide distribution of a catalytic device toreduce winter ambient fine particulate matter from residential wood combustion: A field study. PLoS ONE2016, 11, e0166677. [CrossRef] [PubMed]54. Chuter, R. Review of the Implementation and Effectiveness of the 2011 Season\u2019s Trial of the Forest Industry andParks & Wildlife Service (PWS) Coordinated Smoke Management Strategy (CSMS); FPA: Hobart, TAS, Australia,2011; p. 27.55. Johnston, F.; Wheeler, A.; Williamson, G.; Campbell, S.; Jones, P.; Koolhof, I.; Lucani, C.; Cooling, N.;Bowman, D. Using smartphone technology to reduce health impacts from atmospheric environmentalhazards. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 044019. [CrossRef]56. Report on the Tasmanian Population Health Survey 2016; Department of Health and Human Services Tasmania:Hobart, TAS, Australia, 2017; p. 118.57. Innis, J. Overview of the BLANkET Smoke Monitoring Network: Development and Operation, 2009\u20132015; TasmanianEnvironmental Protection Agency: Hobart, TAS, Australia, 2015; p. 137.58. Ozgen, S.; Caserini, S.; Galante, S.; Giugliano, M.; Angelino, E.; Marongiu, A.; Hugony, F.; Migliavacca, G.;Morreale, C. Emission factors from small scale appliances burning wood and pellets. Atmos. Environ. 2014,94, 144\u2013153. [CrossRef]59. Tasmania Fire Service. Bushfire in Tasmania: A New Approach to Reducing Our Statewide Relative Risk; State FireManagement Council: Hobart, TAS, Australia, 2014; p. 234.60. Ryan, K.C.; Knapp, E.E.; Varner, J.M. Prescribed fire in North American forests and woodlands: History,current practice, and challenges. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 11, e15\u2013e24. [CrossRef]61. 2018\u20132019 Tasmanian Budget: State Fire Comission (Section 25); Tasmanian Government: Hobart, TAS, Australia,2018; pp. 96\u2013102.62. Gibbons, P.; Van Bommel, L.; Gill, A.M.; Cary, G.J.; Driscoll, D.A.; Bradstock, R.A.; Knight, E.; Moritz, M.A.;Stephens, S.L.; Lindenmayer, D.B. Land management practices associated with house loss in wildfires.PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e29212. [CrossRef] [PubMed]63. Syphard, A.D.; Brennan, T.J.; Keeley, J.E. The role of defensible space for residential structure protectionduring wildfires. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2014, 23, 1165\u20131175. [CrossRef]64. Hartsough, B.R.; Abrams, S.; Barbour, R.J.; Drews, E.S.; McIver, J.D.; Moghaddas, J.J.; Schwilk, D.W.;Stephens, S.L. The economics of alternative fuel reduction treatments in western United States dry forests:Financial and policy implications from the National Fire and Fire Surrogate Study. For. Policy Econ. 2008, 10,344\u2013354. [CrossRef]65. Ohlson, D.W.; Berry, T.M.; Gray, R.W.; Blackwell, B.A.; Hawkes, B.C. Multi-attribute evaluation oflandscape-level fuel management to reduce wildfire risk. For. Policy Econ. 2006, 8, 824\u2013837. [CrossRef]66. Evans, A.; Finkral, A. From renewable energy to fire risk reduction: A synthesis of biomass harvesting andutilization case studies in US forests. GCB Bioenergy 2009, 1, 211\u2013219. [CrossRef]67. Springsteen, B.; Christofk, T.; Eubanks, S.; Mason, T.; Clavin, C.; Storey, B. Emission reductions from woodybiomass waste for energy as an alternative to open burning. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2011, 61, 63\u201368.[CrossRef] [PubMed]68. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020: Final Report (Rev. A); U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency Office of Air and Radiation: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; p. 238.69. Hubbell, B.J.; Crume, R.V.; Evarts, D.M.; Cohen, J.M. Policy monitor: Regulation and progress under the1990 clean air act amendments. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2009, 4, 122\u2013138. [CrossRef]70. Fann, N.; Kim, S.-Y.; Olives, C.; Sheppard, L. Estimated changes in life expectancy and adult mortalityresulting from declining PM2.5 exposures in the contiguous United States: 1980\u20132010. Environ. Health Perspect.2017, 125, 097003. [CrossRef] [PubMed]71. Zigler, C.M.; Choirat, C.; Dominici, F. Impact of National Ambient Air Quality Standards nonattainmentdesignations on particulate pollution and health. Epidemiology 2017, 29, 165\u2013174. [CrossRef] [PubMed]72. 2015 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Agency Compliance with the UnfundedMandates Reform Act; Executive Office of the President of the United States: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.73. Barn, P.K.; Elliott, C.T.; Allen, R.W.; Kosatsky, T.; Rideout, K.; Henderson, S.B. Portable air cleaners shouldbe at the forefront of the public health response to landscape fire smoke. Environ. Health 2016, 15, 116.[CrossRef] [PubMed]Fire 2018, 1, 27 15 of 1574. Fann, N.; Alman, B.; Broome, R.A.; Morgan, G.G.; Johnston, F.H.; Pouliot, G.; Rappold, A.G. The healthimpacts and economic value of wildland fire episodes in the US: 2008\u20132012. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 610,802\u2013809. [CrossRef] [PubMed]75. Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. A Review of the 2016 Horse River Wildfire: Alberta Agriculture and ForestryPreparedness and Response; Alberta Agriculture and Forestry: Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2017; p. 54.76. Province of British Columbia. BC Earthquake Immediate Response Plan; Province of British Columbia: Victoria,BC, Canada, 2015; p. 127.77. Schlesinger, W.H. Are wood pellets a green fuel? Science 2018, 359, 1328\u20131329. [CrossRef] [PubMed]78. Martinson, E.J.; Omi, P.N. Fuel Treatments and Fire Severity: A Meta-Analysis; US Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2013; p. 38.79. McIver, J.D.; Stephens, S.L.; Agee, J.K.; Barbour, J.; Boerner, R.E.; Edminster, C.B.; Erickson, K.L.; Farris, K.L.;Fettig, C.J.; Fiedler, C.E. Ecological effects of alternative fuel-reduction treatments: Highlights of the NationalFire and Fire Surrogate study (FFS). Int. J. Wildland Fire 2013, 22, 63\u201382. [CrossRef]80. Curran, T.J.; Perry, G.L.; Wyse, S.V.; Alam, M.A. Managing fire and biodiversity in the wildland-urbaninterface: A role for green firebreaks. Fire 2017, 1, 3. [CrossRef]81. Bowman, D.M.; Garnett, S.T.; Barlow, S.; Bekessy, S.A.; Bellairs, S.M.; Bishop, M.J.; Bradstock, R.A.;Jones, D.N.; Maxwell, S.L.; Pittock, J. Renewal ecology: Conservation for the Anthropocene. Restor. Ecol.2017, 25, 674\u2013680. [CrossRef]82. Johnson, C.N.; Prior, L.D.; Archibald, S.; Poulos, H.M.; Barton, A.M.; Williamson, G.J.; Bowman, D.M.J.S. Cantrophic rewilding reduce the impact of fire in a more flammable world? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2018, in press.\u00a9 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution(CC BY) license (http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/).","@language":"en"}],"Genre":[{"@value":"Article","@language":"en"}],"IsShownAt":[{"@value":"10.14288\/1.0379521","@language":"en"}],"Language":[{"@value":"eng","@language":"en"}],"PeerReviewStatus":[{"@value":"Reviewed","@language":"en"}],"Provider":[{"@value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","@language":"en"}],"Publisher":[{"@value":"Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute","@language":"en"}],"PublisherDOI":[{"@value":"10.3390\/fire1020027","@language":"en"}],"Rights":[{"@value":"CC BY 4.0","@language":"en"}],"RightsURI":[{"@value":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/","@language":"en"}],"ScholarlyLevel":[{"@value":"Faculty","@language":"en"}],"Subject":[{"@value":"Fire management","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Fuels management","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Wildfire","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Prescribed fire","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Mechanical thinning","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Green fire breaks","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Smoke","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Air pollution","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Public health","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Air quality regulation","@language":"en"}],"Title":[{"@value":"Can Air Quality Management Drive Sustainable Fuels Management at the Temperate Wildland\u2013Urban Interface?","@language":"en"}],"Type":[{"@value":"Text","@language":"en"}],"URI":[{"@value":"http:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/2429\/70726","@language":"en"}],"SortDate":[{"@value":"2018-08-09 AD","@language":"en"}],"@id":"doi:10.14288\/1.0379521"}