Why do we burn? Examining arguments underpinning the use of prescribed burning to manage wildfire risk

Abstract Managing wildfire risk requires consideration of complex and uncertain scientific evidence as well as trade‐offs between different values and goals. Conflicting perspectives on what values and goals are most important, what ought to be done and what trade‐offs are acceptable complicate those decisions. Prescribed burning is an important intervention to mitigate wildfire risk, but its planning and implementation are often controversial and politicised. In Australia, questions about the effectiveness of prescribed burning in reducing risk to people and ecosystems, especially in a changing climate, have generated debate about whether current policy and planning adequately incorporate up‐to‐date evidence and differing perspectives on how, where, when and why prescribed fire is used. This paper investigates these issues by analysing the arguments underpinning a petition and review of a state conservation agency's prescribed burning programme in southwest Western Australia, a highly biodiverse region with evident polarisation between decision‐makers, experts and communities. Applying an argument analysis to this pivotal decision makes the implicit drivers of disagreement explicit by illuminating the underlying premises embedded in arguments and the justifications and evidence that lead to different conclusions. Whilst there was broad acceptance that prescribed burning had a role to play, conflict has centred on choices about the specific trade‐offs involved and the evidence used to make those choices. Our analysis reveals substantive issues that led some experts and community members to question the scientific credibility and legitimacy of the programme and lose trust in the agency, but the reviewing committee's decision ignored several important empirical and ethical premises underlying these concerns. We also identify points of overlap that could be better leveraged to resolve some important aspects of this debate. Continued conflict and renewed calls for an independent audit of the agency's programme underscore the consequence of failing to address fundamental issues raised by Petitioners. This case offers lessons for other high‐conflict situations, where trust and acceptability require attending to good governance principles; focusing less on the means of managing wildfire risk (e.g. what we burn) and engaging with the substantive issues fuelling disagreement (e.g. why we burn). Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.