Policymakers and decisionmakers alike have suggested that the use of less aggressive suppression strategies for wildland fires might help stem the tide of rising emergency wildland fire expenditures. However, the interplay of wildland fire management decisions and expenditures is not
well understood. In this study, we assess the effect of different fire management objectives and strategies on expenditures. Analyses of 1,330 US Forest Service and US Department of Interior fires from fiscal years (FYs) 2006‐2008 indicate that management objectives and strategies do
affect costs, but the results vary both by agency and by the cost metric used. For instance, although less aggressive protection strategies may result in a lower cost per acre or daily cost, increased acreages or longer duration associated with less aggressive strategies may lead to total
fire management costs that are either higher than or equal to more aggressive strategies.
The Journal of Forestry is the most widely circulated scholarly forestry journal in the world. In print since 1902, the Journal has received several national awards for excellence. The mission of the Journal of Forestry is to advance the profession of forestry by keeping forest management professionals informed about significant developments and ideas in the many facets of forestry: economics, education and communication, entomology and pathology, fire, forest ecology, geospatial technologies, history, international forestry, measurements, policy, recreation, silviculture, social sciences, soils and hydrology, urban and community forestry, utilization and engineering, and wildlife management. The Journal is published bimonthly: January, March, May, July, September, and November.