Coexisting With Fire: 

Ecosystems, People, and Collaboration

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service / Rocky Mountain Research Station

General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-227

November 2009
You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your 

mailing information in label form through one of the following media. 

Please specify the publication title and number.

Publishing Services

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1122

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Kaufmann, Merrill R.; Shlisky, Ayn; Brooks, Jeffrey J.; Kent, Brian. 2009. Coexisting With Fire: Ecosystems, 

People, and Collaboration. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-227. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 15 p.

Abstract

We are in a “fire crisis.” Many regions of the world are experiencing larger, more frequent, and more severe 

fires that threaten people’s lives, livelihoods, and properties, and the health of ecosystems. Regardless of 

the causes of this crisis — a common threat that crosses cultural and geographical boundaries — societies 

need informed and knowledge-based approaches to living with fire that lead to agreed upon success stories 

in sustainable fire management. Success will be characterized, in part, by the mutual support of people with 

diverse interests working through an adaptive and collaborative process.

Cover photo courtesy of Karen Wattenmaker
A Fire Crisis and More

The warning signs of a crisis are everywhere — massive wildland fires, loss of biodiversity, 

the spread of exotic invasive species, climate change, threats to human health, poverty, food 

and energy shortages, and loss of farmland. The list is large. If we accept that human well being 

is ultimately rooted in the condition of our global ecosystems, we must also acknowledge that 

sustainable living in fire-dependent environments is a social problem centered on people and 

communities.

Our challenge is to conserve and protect ecosystems for the long term1

. 

It is imperative that we think about how to live within the capabilities 

of our ecosystems, and that we avoid exploitation of local, national, 

and global resources to the point of loss of ecosystem functions and 

collapse of human societies. In facing this challenge, we cannot deny 

the critical need for ecological stewardship2

. Nor can we overly rely on 

improvements in technology to solve the looming problems of society 

and the global ecology. We need to critically consider major changes in 

our lifestyles, ways of thinking, and ways of doing business with one 

another, adapting our social and economic systems to make them more 

amenable to ecosystem sustainability. We need to work with ecological 

processes, not against them.

The oft-used Venn diagram illustrates an important point. 

Adapting socially and economically to the ecological capability 

of land requires realigning our social and economic needs to 

fit more closely with the land’s ecological potential. Trying to 

adjust the ecology to fit our human needs has failed time after 

time, sometimes ruining both ecosystems and societies.

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-227. 2009 1
Our Challenge

The task of achieving ecological, social, and economic sustainability is so daunting that it is 

difficult to achieve consensus on what needs to be done. One place to begin is with a discussion of 

background about the relations between ecosystems, people, and fire. Our purpose is to demonstrate 

the importance of integrating the needs of fire as an ecological process with needs to reduce its threat 

to community well-being. We also demonstrate the importance of using collaboration to frame fire 

management goals and find socially acceptable solutions to conflicts between fire and people. These 

concepts and case studies, largely developed from our experiences in the United States and with an 

understanding of global contexts, may serve as a model for ecologically and socially acceptable fire 

management solutions in similar places around the world.

Both human health and ecosystem health vary dramatically around the world and within continents 

and countries. In many regions, a relatively stable relationship between people and ecosystems has 

existed for centuries or millennia. Often human influences have occurred for so long that today 

local ecology and human society cannot be separated. In other regions, human influences have been 

small or non-existent. In extreme cases, however, some ecosystems have collapsed entirely, often 

with disastrous consequences for human communities and cultures. With the dramatic increase in 

world population that has occurred in the brief span of a century, it seems probable that collapses of 

ecosystems and societies will continue, at least to some extent.

Due to our dependence on ecosystems, humans have a responsibility to understand their roles 

in protecting and maintaining them while simultaneously deriving a quality existence from them. 

Numerous studies and countless anecdotal stories that describe human relationships with ecosystems 

leave no doubt that human well-being depends explicitly on sustainable ecosystem services3

. We 

can live in sustainable ways with ecosystems, or we can chance placing demands on ecosystems that 

overwhelm their functioning.

Sometimes we manage ecosystems for productivity or convenience, only to find that ignoring 

ecosystem function has consequences. Fire suppression and fire exclusion, for example, may keep 

valuable timber from burning and protect human life and property for a time, but removal of fire can 

also create conditions that make both ecosystems and people vulnerable to extreme fire behavior. An 

objective appraisal of the current global situation would reveal that in many cases, we are irreversibly 

changing ecosystems and depleting non-renewable resources. It has been argued that no amount of 

exploitation of non-renewable resources can sustain humans indefinitely.

2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-227. 2009
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-227. 2009 3

The Colorado Front Range

A wind-driven fire in May 1996 was only 

the beginning. In a matter of hours, the 

Buffalo Creek fire burned an 11-mile swath 

through ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forest 

in the Upper South Platte River watershed, 

leaving behind a 7,500-acre hole in the forest 

landscape and several burned houses. Weeks 

later, a thunderstorm caused flooding that 

killed two people, and erosion shut down two 

of Denver Water’s three treatment plants for a 

week. Federal, state, and Denver Water folks 

recognized the continuing risk of more fires, 

erosion, and lives and property in the balance. 

These concerns led to the development of the 

Upper South Platte Watershed Protection and 

Restoration Project, with the primary intent of 

protecting a critical watershed and several local 

communities while practicing good ecology. 

New ecological research only a few miles away 

suggested that historically, a fire like Buffalo 

Creek would have been highly unlikely because 

historical forests were much less dense and 

contained older trees with fewer limbs near 

the ground. Additionally, the forest landscape 

was broken up with many small openings 

created by earlier natural fires. This research 

helped focus watershed protection efforts on 

treatments that were ecologically sound. Most 

of the forest was owned and managed by federal 

and state agencies and Denver Water, though 

protection of private land and property was 

also a significant goal. Initially, resistance to 

mechanical treatments of forests was great — 

some interest groups feared excessive logging on 

public land — yet, ecological research indicated 

that treatments could lead to good ecological 

outcomes. Gradually, the project objectives and 

treatment recommendations were endorsed and 

implemented.

A bigger problem. Over the next 6 years, 

a series of other large fires occurred in the 

ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forest zone of 

the Colorado Front Range, culminated by the 

massive Hayman fire in 2002 in the Upper 

South Platte watershed. These fires burned 

about 175,000 acres and several hundred homes 

and eight fire-fighters lost their lives. Yet a 

bullet was dodged — had the rapidly spreading 

Hayman fire burned a short distance 

farther north, thousands of homes 

would have been destroyed in a 

single day with untold loss of human 

lives. The pattern of severe, highly 

uncharacteristic fires was clear, and a 

new effort to address this expanding 

problem was formed — the Front 

Range Fuels Treatment Partnership. 

Team members from federal and 

state agencies were charged with 

facilitating treatments of forest 

lands. The team recognized that 

forest condition was a problem over 

a far greater area than just the Upper 

South Platte watershed and that 

vastly more resources were needed 

for treatments that lower the risk 

of such extreme fire events. But scaling up the 

effort faced significant complications. Much of 

the land likely to need treatment was privately 

owned and densely populated with mountain 

homes (often described as the wildland/urban 

interface). Projected treatment costs were 

huge, and the excess biomass that needed to 

be removed from forests had little commercial 

value. Industry infrastructure to implement 

treatments was nearly non-existent. Projected 

acres needing treatment for ecological restoration 

or community protection were unclear, and 

mistrust of government officials recommending 

unspecified treatments was always possible. The 

need for a broader solution was becoming clear.

Photo courtesy of the U.S. Forest Service
4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-227. 2009

Ecosystems and Fire

The ecological role of fire in ecosystems around the world ranges from 

being a strong driver of ecosystem character to having no influence. Fire 

dependent ecosystems are those that have a long association with fire over 

time. In these places, fire is an essential ecological factor for the conservation 

of biodiversity when it occurs at appropriate times and levels of intensity (for 

example, African savannas and North American temperate coniferous forests). 

Fire sensitive ecosystems are those that have largely not developed in the 

presence of fire, and thus, introduction of fire is considered inappropriate and 

can have negative impacts on biodiversity (for example, Brazilian tropical 

moist broadleaf forests). Fire independent ecosystems are those that naturally 

lack sufficient fuel or ignition sources to support fire as an ecological process 

(for example, Middle Eastern deserts, Siberian tundra).

Over half of all terrestrial ecosystems worldwide are fire-dependent, and 

either the loss of fire from or the alteration of the ecological role of fire in 

these systems can threaten their long-term sustainability. At least 20 percent 

of terrestrial ecosystems worldwide are fire sensitive4

, and increasing 

industrial use of these ecosystems by people is resulting in more frequent 

fires with detrimental ecological and social effects. Clean air, clean water, and 

productive soils can be negatively or positively influenced 

by fire depending on how species respond to fire and on 

the frequency, season, and intensity of fire. The role of fire 

in many ecosystems around the world is poorly understood 

and not well recognized by many societies. Where the 

benefits of fire are recognized, the appropriate fire regime 

for the ecological conditions may be unknown. What we do 

know is that understanding the role of fire in maintaining or 

threatening ecosystems is critical to conserving biodiversity 

and sustainable living.

Photos courtesy of the U.S. Forest Service
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-227. 2009 5

People and Fire

The role of fire in human societies ranges from being a useful tool for managing the land for goods 

and services to a serious threat that can harm people and disrupt their livelihoods. The use of fire 

as a land management tool has long-standing cultural significance to many communities. In some 

regions, fire has been used for hundreds to thousands of years for hunting, cultivating desirable food 

plants, fiber and fuel, clearing for agriculture, improving forage for domestic animals, controlling 

pests, easing travel, and communication5

.

In many cases around the United States, people have changed the relationship between fire and 

ecosystems, often creating harmful effects. How we use and manage the land can alter fire regimes. 

Rural and urban development, agriculture, forestry, fire exclusion, invading non-native species, and 

climate change related to our human activities have put most of the nation’s ecosystems at risk from 

altered fire regimes — either too much, too little, or the wrong kind of fire6

.

In the United States and other countries, decades of successful fire prevention and suppression have 

been linked to increased fuel loads and increased fire severity and frequency, which can preclude 

allowing fire to play its historical roles on the land. In spite of fire exclusion efforts, we have also seen 

increases in accidental fires that are associated with recreational 

activities and arson near human developments.

Fire exclusion near modern human settlements often causes 

increases in tree or shrub density. Such changes have been linked 

to uncharacteristically severe fires that have adverse impacts on 

human health and safety caused by smoke, water pollution, or 

flooding7

. Experts have also shown that climate change related 

to human activities has likely changed fire regimes across many 

other ecosystems. Altered fire regimes can adversely impact 

economies, livelihoods, health, safety, and ecosystems. In our 

role as stewards of ecosystems, we need to critically consider the 

degree to which we can use and shape ecosystems while allowing 

ecosystems to function as they should in the long term.

Photo courtesy of the U.S. Forest Service
6 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-227. 2009

Diverse Perspectives, Complex Problems

As stewards of ecosystems, we require a more complete understanding of the human dimensions 

of living with fire. Applying principles of conservation biology and ecosystem management will 

remain important, but these are only part of the story. Living with fire embodies an array of competing 

social values, multiple interests, and uncertain outcomes of how we manage land and fire.

Coexisting with fire is contentious and complex because there are many diverse people, or 

stakeholders, involved with and affected by fire. We all have a stake in this problem. How we 

understand our differing situations and varying contexts determines the choices we make with 

respect to living with fire. Different people see issues of living with and managing fire through 

different lenses. For example, a forest ecologist studying a fire-dependent ecosystem may see 

the use of fire as a management tool quite 

differently than the people who live or work in 

or near the forest.

Social scientists in the United States have 

documented that people respond to fire events, 

fire management, and land recovery after fires 

in different ways depending on their values 

and beliefs about nature, their history in a 

certain place, and their attitudes toward how to 

manage the land on which they live. Differing 

explanations of how and why we should live 

with fire often compete and conflict, with no 

single correct solution. Our need and capacity 

to coexist with fire may best be defined and 

addressed on a case-by-case basis, but with an 

eye to the overall context.

Photos courtesy of the U.S. Forest Service
Thinking Adaptively, Working Collaboratively

Ecosystems were, and often still are, managed for one or several parts of the whole, such as optimizing timber 

production, conserving wildlife habitat, or excluding fires around development. In many cases, it has been 

documented that such focused approaches have resulted in alteration of ecosystem structure and function. Thus, we 

must think differently, and adaptively if we wish to succeed as stewards of the ecosystems in which we live. One way 

to accomplish this is through the use of adaptive management. This approach allows us to focus broadly on all aspects 

of ecological, social, and economic systems and their interactions. It also incorporates a feedback loop that facilitates 

our learning about the consequences of our management on ecosystems, thus providing guidance for change in our 

management strategies when necessary. Finally, it lends itself well to collaborative management approaches.

Our social, economic, political, and organizational wills must each play a role in embracing innovations for 

coexisting with fire-dependent ecosystems. To do so, we must base our thinking on respect for many different 

perspectives and diverse types of knowledge, and we must work collaboratively.

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-227. 2009 7
8 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-227. 2009

Knowledge and collaboration are never static. Both change with time, experience, and 

circumstances. We can increase our chances of improving the balance between ecosystems and people 

by using new scientific insights and by intensifying our efforts to achieve more inclusive and fair 

collaboration. This does not mean that we need complete scientific and practical understanding to 

begin. Even with incomplete knowledge, we can and must make progress, and future management 

actions are often enriched by knowledge that can only be gained by experience. Using an adaptive 

and collaborative process, stakeholders can create new knowledge of their roles in living with firedependent systems, and this new knowledge can be blended with scientific and practical 

knowledge to form a basis of agreement and new insights for collective action.

Documenting what various people believe about living with fire has largely been 

addressed by studying public opinion, or attitudes. Studies are sensitive to the type of 

people sampled, but in general, this approach tells us the proportion of people who agree 

or disagree with fire and land management options. Documenting attitudes has helped 

managers and researchers understand that people are indeed part of how fire is addressed 

in ecosystem management, but we need more. How we think about the human dimensions 

of fire must change and adapt as well.

Predicting behavior from people’s attitudes assumes that we are rational, and like 

computers, we process information in linear and predictable ways. In this view of human 

dimensions, a person’s attitude toward a management action, such as a prescribed burn, 

determines how he or she will react in the future in response to the burn. Based on this 

narrow assumption, we have made great efforts to “educate” individuals to increase, or 

engineer, social acceptance of contentious policies. This approach tries to persuade people 

to change their attitudes and behaviors in order to bring them in line with policies created 

by experts. However, there are times when attitudes do not translate into the behaviors we 

expect. Other factors can affect an individual’s responses, such as what one’s family or 

friends think he or she should support regarding fire or land management policies.

Educating stakeholders to sway their opinions oversimplifies the social complexities 

of coexisting with fire. Situational factors, such as how a fire started, whether property 

was damaged, risks to humans and wildlife, and how risks are mitigated, may all affect 

people’s support for management actions. Persuasive messages are rarely received as 

the experts intended after being filtered through stakeholders’ varying lenses or problem 

frames, which often differ from those of the experts. Coexisting with fire requires a shift 

in thinking away from persuading individuals to do what the experts think is right, to what 

stakeholder groups, including experts, mutually agree is good and appropriate.

We suggest that sustainable living requires creating ownership and shared 

understandings of the social problems that are occurring today in ecosystems across 

the United States and other countries. Living with fire in fire-dependent ecosystems 

can be thought of as a social problem that may best be resolved through adaptive and 

collaborative learning processes that enable stakeholders to act collectively. Collaborative solutions 

are not linear, nor are results accomplished quickly, but the results of collaborative learning will be 

better understood and longer lasting.

Photo courtesy of the U.S. Forest Service
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-227. 2009 9

The Fire Learning Network Model of 

Collaborative Conservation

The U.S. Fire Learning Network (FLN) is a collaborative 

nationwide project of the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department 

of the Interior, and The Nature Conservancy. In existence since 

2002, the FLN has networked over 100 landscape projects 

across the United States where tangible progress in landscape 

scale fire management planning is being efficiently achieved. 

These emerging success stories result from common partner 

goals for fire regime restoration and national and regional 

leadership in facilitation of collaboration, peer-review, and 

information dissemination across multiple landscape projects. 

The FLN consists of landscape-scale projects encompassing 

over 600 partners and over 78 million acres of high priority 

conservation areas in 36 states, on average encompassing 50% 

public and 50% private lands. In each of these projects, all 

stakeholders — from community groups to federal agencies — 

have learned how to work together to develop shared visions 

for landscape management, test assumptions about ecosystem 

structure and function, garner funding for implementation of 

priority actions, monitor on-the-ground outcomes, and learn 

how to overcome critical challenges related to the health of 

fire-adapted ecosystems and community well-being. In a 

recent survey, FLN participants identified the top three benefits 

of the network process: 1) increased success through peer 

learning with other landscape practitioners, 2) strengthened 

ecological foundations for management treatments, and 

3) increased support by stakeholders for decision-making. 

The survey also revealed that the most common use of FLN 

products is found in prescribed burn, fire management, Forest 

and Resource Management, Community Wildfire Protection, 

and private ranch or forest management plans. Collectively 

across the nation, FLN partners have identified the top barriers 

to implementation, including the inability to get funding 

for implementation, an inadequate workforce capacity, and 

a lack of prioritization of restoration by agencies. Partners 

are working toward breaking these barriers through national 

facilitation, leveraging FLN seed funding, and cultivating 

collaborative partnerships. Since 2002, the FLN leveraging 

has added $15 million for implementing restoration actions on 

560,000 collective acres.

Photos courtesy of the U.S. Forest Service
Coexisting With Fire Through 

Collective Action Unilateral action, the opposite of collective action for addressing a social problem, is a no-win 

situation often leading to deep conflict and dysfunction among stakeholders — a situation 

to be avoided. Today, many social scientists think of collective action in terms of three broad and 

interconnected social processes that can enable people to work together to avoid no-win situations

8

. 

These include: • Building relationships and the capacity to collaborate • Problem framing — how people come to define living with fire • Mutual trust that is built over time through positive public relations, inclusive discussions, 

and interactive communication and learning

From an organizational perspective, capacity to collaborate means more 

than money, skills, and equipment. Collaboration means having a clear 

vision and strategy to enable relationship building, collective thinking, 

adaptive planning, and implementation. A collaborative partnership with selforganization and strong leadership has the ability to address local problems 

related to living with fire.

Problem framing accounts for the different ways that stakeholders see, 

or define, the problem and the language and concepts related to it such as 

ecosystem function and sustainability. Framing accounts for diverse public 

understandings, but people often have trouble seeing the same problem 

situation from another’s frame of reference, which suggests a need to develop 

a common language and common goals for working together.

A partnership that communicates and sets objectives using a common 

language can develop mutual trust among its members and other potential 

partners. Mutual trust is built on respect and tolerance for different ways of 

seeing a situation, and it can develop over time through fair, inclusive, and 

interactive communication and learning processes. Research knowledge often 

can provide a foundation for building agreement and trust.

The areas of overlap shown in the collaborative process diagram illustrate 

relationships between these important social processes. The central area of 

overlap indicates collective action, which should be the goal of collaboration. 

Collective action requires development and integration of partnerships, common goals, and a common 

language. As knowledge evolves over time through these processes, stakeholders can learn how to 

collectively address the difficult problems they face living in fire-dependent ecosystems.

10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-227. 2009
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-227. 2009 11

Linking Ecology and Collaboration

What do we need to do to coexist with fire-dependent ecosystems? First, we should recognize 

and acknowledge the need to develop new ways of addressing ecosystems, people, and fire 

collectively. Second, we need to practice ecosystem management and human interactions based on 

unifying principles that draw ecosystem management and collaboration together. There are several 

parallels to be drawn between a number of common principles that have emerged from the study of 

conservation ecology and collaboration:

Save all the pieces. Ecosystems must have the potential for maintaining all the native organisms 

(including people) and the interrelationships among organisms, communities, and the physical 

environment that supports them. Similarly, collaboration must save all the players. That is, a 

collaborative partnership has to include a diversity of stakeholders and actively seek new members as 

the partnership learns new knowledge and adapts its actions to changing situations on the ground.

Save all the processes—ecological and social. Ecosystem processes, including the frequency 

and intensity of these processes, should be retained to allow ecosystems to self-regulate. The social 

processes involved with collaboration should likewise be retained so that the social system can adapt 

to changing conditions. These include, but are not limited to, building relationships and networks 

among partners, developing common goals, establishing leadership and mutual trust, developing 

shared definitions of problems, and encouraging interactive communication and engagement among 

stakeholders.

Think long term. Ecosystem processes and collaboration both take time, and sustainability involves 

accommodating changes over time. Managing ecosystems and engaging in collaboration that is 

sustainable must follow a long-term vision that may include learning from history and past mistakes. 

Solutions and successes are temporary and specific to situations and places. An adaptive approach to 

collaborative fire and ecosystem management helps accommodate the critical element of time.

Think large and small spaces. Our environment exists at multiple levels of organization, from 

individual organisms, communities, populations, and ecosystems, to global biomes. Land management 

problems often arise from incongruence between the scale of management and the scale of the 

ecosystem process of concern. Misunderstanding the scale of the fire regime or the scale of land use 

policy can lead to disruptions of ecological processes. For example, when people locally alter firedependent ecosystems, migratory species dependent on those ecosystems can be seriously affected. 

Collaborative processes also function at multiple levels, from groups to communities to nations to 

federations of nations. Taking management action to coexist with fire is a social process that occurs 

at these different levels of human organization. To properly manage ecosystems, we must work to 

integrate collaboration across these varying levels of scale.

Components of Collaboration 

that Facilitate Collective Action

Partnerships

	Long-term, committed relationships that have:

• Developed over time

• Collective identity 

• A sense of community

• Strong leadership

• Sustainable objectives

Common Goals

	Shared understandings and a guiding vision of:

• Future desired conditions

• Acceptable management practices

• Successful outcomes

Common Language—Framing

	Shared definitions of:

• Fire management

• Fire and its roles

• Ecosystem/human community health and 

well-being

• Sustainability

• Restoration

• Success

Common Language—Trust

	Public relations and inclusive/interactive 

communication that enables:

• Adaptive co-learning not persuasion

• Open discussion

• Listening

• Credibility

• Respect for differing frames
12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-227. 2009

Implications From Local to 

Global

We are all in this together. Just as climate change is a global issue9

, so 

too are the ways we understand and conserve our ecosystems. Firedependent forests, shrublands, and grasslands respond directly to human 

land management decisions everywhere, even if social choices or needs 

driving land management policies and practices differ locally or regionally. 

We benefit from actions at any scale that are directed toward protecting and 

restoring fire-dependent ecosystems and the ecological processes that keep 

them sustainable. However, many of the issues associated with protecting 

and improving these ecosystems call for integrated efforts across multiple 

spatial scales, social levels of organization, and jurisdictions. We have an 

opportunity, and an urgency and responsibility, to rise to this challenge.

The Collaborative Global Fire Partnership

The Nature Conservancy, World Conservation Union (IUCN), 

University of California, Berkeley Center for Fire Research and 

Outreach, and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have joined forces to engage 

hundreds of scientists, managers, and policy-makers in the assessment 

of fire’s role in biodiversity conservation worldwide. Through the 

partnership’s ongoing Global Fire Assessment, scientists, practitioners, 

and policy-makers collaboratively identify common strategies to allow 

fire to play a role in places where it benefits ecosystems and people 

and keeps fire out of places where it is destructive. The Assessment has 

identified global and regional patterns in how fire regimes are altered and 

what is needed to successfully integrate ecological and social systems. 

The top human activities that impact the ecological role of fire regimes, 

in order of area impacted globally, include:

• Ecosystem Conversion — the use of fire in land clearing and 

management for livestock farming, ranching, and agriculture 

that directly threatens fire sensitive systems and fragments all 

ecosystem types.

• Energy Production and Mining — the expansion of energy and 

mining, which often leads to increased human-caused ignitions or 

fire exclusion to protect energy and mining activities.

• Fire and Fire Suppression — the direct exclusion of fire from 

fire-dependent ecosystems or introduction of fire by humans where 

it is ecologically detrimental.

• Rural and Urban Development — human housing and industrial 

development, which often leads to exclusion of fire for community 

protection or an increase in human-caused ignitions relative to 

natural fire dynamics.

• Fire Management Capacity — the adequacy of qualified staff and 

training opportunities to address altered fire regimes.

• Traditional Fire Use — conflicts between traditional uses of fire 

and needs to maintain or restore native fire regimes.

• Climate Change — climate, and how it changes, is a strong driver 

of fire behavior.

Underlying all of these threats are the national and multilateral 

fire management and land use policies that disable our ability to 

maintain or restore the role of fire in ecosystem function. Collaborative 

understanding of the effects of policies, human activities, and fire 

management capacity on the ecological and social role of fire is the first 

step toward ensuring that decision- and policy-making is ecologically 

and socially appropriate.

Photo courtesy of the U.S. Forest Service
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-227. 2009 13

A Call to Action

As ecosystem stewards, our goal must be to ensure that people can effectively coexist with fire 

while also meeting social and ecological needs. To begin to realize this goal, we need to work 

collectively toward shared understandings and then develop action plans to address a number of key 

problem areas:

• Strive to understand the nature, degree, and extent of human impacts on conserving 

the role of fire in ecosystems at multiple scales, including any effects of traditional 

relationships between people and fire.

• Use knowledge, both scientific and traditional, to more completely integrate native fire 

regimes into the design needs of human developments and land uses.

• Proactively engage and partner with diverse stakeholders in all fire management, land 

use, conservation planning, and development activities.

• Identify key barriers to conserving the role of fire in ecosystems or abating fire as 

a threat to ecosystem functions, including ecologically inappropriate fire and land use 

policies, lack of funding, capacity, or expertise, and lack of knowledge about fire’s 

ecological roles on the part of the public and decision-makers.

• Develop and implement collaborative, innovative solutions that take advantage of 

partnerships, shared resources, and expertise across landscapes, countries, and regions.

• Sustain the effectiveness of collective action through adaptive learning processes that 

engender trust, relationship building, and commitment to sustainable living.

A Roundtable Process in the 

Colorado Front Range

The expanding problems of protecting and 

restoring forests and human values at risk in 

Colorado were much larger issues than the Front 

Range Fuels Treatment Partnership team could 

address by itself. Treatment planning required far 

more ecological information, vastly more financial 

resources for treatments, political support, and 

feedback from many more stakeholders and potential 

partners regarding human reaction and support for 

such a massive effort. With the encouragement of the 

partnership team, a broader interim planning group 

formulated a roundtable process that was focused on 

developing a vision and roadmap for restoring forest 

health and protecting communities in the Colorado 

Front Range (covering about 6 million acres). The 

need to be inclusive was recognized as critical. The 

Front Range Roundtable included representatives 

from every significant stakeholder interest group, 

including environmental organizations, state and 

federal agencies, state and local community leaders, 

the academic/scientific community, and user group/

industry leaders. The breadth of representation 

and importance and scope of the issues created 

a dynamic that encouraged intensity and passion 

among participants. Nearly 30 roundtable member 

organizations convened for meetings over a 2-year 

period, with dozens more individuals contributing 

to working groups focused on ecology, economics, 

action and policy, and community outreach. The 

Front Range Roundtable produced a series of 10 

initiatives and recommended actions spanning four 

priorities — increasing funding, reducing cost of 

treatments, ensuring local leadership and planning, 

and setting priorities for progress toward common 

goals. The issues have been framed; the next steps 

will determine true success — improved ecology and 

safer communities in the Colorado Front Range.

Photo courtesy of the U.S. Forest Service
14 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-227. 2009

Endnotes

1 Kaufmann, M. R., R. T. Graham, D. A. Boyce, Jr., W. H. Moir, L. Perry, R. T. Reynolds, R. L. Bassett, P. Mehlhop, 

C. B. Edminster, W. M. Block, and P. S. Corn. 1994. An ecological basis for ecosystem management. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Sta. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-246. 22 p. 

2 Kaufmann, M. R., A. Shlisky, and P. Marchand. 2005. Good Fire, Bad Fire — how to think about forest land management 

and ecological processes. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mtn. Res. Station. 12 p.

3 United Nations. 2006. Millennium Development Goals Report. United Nations Department of Economic and Social 

Affairs — June 2006. New York. ISBN 92-11-01132-9.

4 Shlisky, A., J. Waugh, P. Gonzalez, M. Gonzalez, M. Manta, H. Santoso, E. Alvarado, A. Ainuddin Nuruddin, D.A. 

Rodríguez-Trejo, R. Swaty, D. Schmidt, M. Kaufmann, R. Myers, A. Alencar, F. Kearns, D. Johnson, J. Smith, D. Zollner 

and W. Fulks. 2007. Fire, Ecosystems and People: Threats and Strategies for Global Biodiversity Conservation. The Nature 

Conservancy. Arlington, VA.

5 Myers, R. 2006. Living with Fire — Sustaining Ecosystems and Livelihoods Through Integrated Fire Management. 

The Nature Conservancy Global Fire Initiative, Tallahassee, FL. 32 p. http://tncfire.org/documents/Integrated_Fire_

Management_Myers_2006.pdf.

6 Blankenship, K., A. Shlisky, W. Fulks, E. Contreras, D. Johnson, J. Patton, J. Smith and R. Swaty. 2007. An Ecological 

Assessment of Fire and Biodiversity Conservation Across the Lower 48 States of the U.S. Global Fire Initiative Technical 

Report 2007-1. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

7 Food and Agriculture Organization. 2006. Global Forest Resource Assessment: Progress toward sustainable forest 

management. FAO Forestry Paper 147, Rome, Italy. ISBN 92-5-105481-9. 

8 Brooks, J.J., A. N. Bujak, J. G. Champ, and D. R. Williams. 2006. Collaborative capacity, problem framing, and mutual 

trust in addressing the wildland fire social problem: An annotated reading list. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-182. 27 p.

9 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, 

Summary for Policymakers. http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-227. 2009 15

Authors

Merrill R. Kaufmann, U.S. Forest Service (emeritus), Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO

Ayn Shlisky, The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, CO

Jeffrey J. Brooks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Conservation Planning and Policy, Anchorage, AK

Brian Kent, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO


The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part 

of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information 

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.