An optimization approach to prescribed burning for mitigating PM_2.5 emissions in wildfire management

Prescribed burning effectively reduces wildfire hazards through its use in managing forest fuel loads. However, its broad application often overlooks the health and environmental impacts of PM_2.5 emissions, which can result in significant costs. While it mitigates wildfire emissions, prescribed burning also generates PM_2.5, particularly during the smoldering phase, with these fine particles posing serious respiratory and cardiovascular health risks. This study aims to analyze the impact of prescribed burning PM_2.5 emissions, focusing on strategic planning to minimize total net fires PM_2.5 emission costs. Specifically, we developed an optimization model that quantifies both the implementation costs of prescribed burning and the social costs of PM_2.5 emissions from prescribed burning and wildfires. Applying this model to Oregon in 2021, we demonstrated that prescribed burning can effectively reduce wildfire emissions and the associated social costs by 65.30%, with an estimated benefit-cost ratio of 4.35. The total net cost can be reduced by 25.68% at the optimal prescribed burning extent, requiring a 15.65% increase in acreage compared to the actual implementation. However, our case study also showed that exceeding this optimal extent significantly raises net costs due to the social costs of elevated PM_2.5 emissions from prescribed burning. Over-implementation leads to a proportional increase in adverse health outcomes, ultimately outweighing the benefits. Our study underscores the influence of prescribed burning strategies on PM_2.5 emission, emphasizing the critical need to integrate emission assessments into fire management planning.