Problem Statement (Model Focus) Wildfires Problem Statement (Model Focus) How do policies of fire suppression, controlled burns, clear cutting, and forest thinning impact the number and severity of wildfires and the number of homes lost to fire in urban interface areas? How does the system structure influence legislation for clear cutting vs. forest thinning?

The Stocks & Flows

Fire Suppression (B1) reduces the number of wildfires

The fire suppression “fix” (B1) has the effect of increasing undergrowth buildup and increasing the number of wildfires (R2) and homes burned (R3). Fire suppression is a “Fix that Fails.”

Another failure: Fire suppression also increases the number of homes burned (R4).

Controlled burns to clear undergrowth can also reduce wildfires (B5).

The more wildfires, the more the “sentiment to do something The more wildfires, the more the “sentiment to do something.” One “something” is “clear cutting,” which does reduce wildfires & homes lost (B6a,b). “Clear cutting” also provides logging profits that allow industry to influence legislation to allow even more “clear cutting” (R7).

“Forest thinning” is another response to “sentiment to do something” that creates additional balancing feedbacks that affect wildfires and Environmental Quality. It clears undergrowth to reduce wildfires and homes lost (B8a,b). It also regulates “Environmental Quality” by increasing “large tree growth” (B9).

But “clear cutting” decreases “Environmental Quality” by reducing “large tree growth” (B10a) and increasing “forest land erosion” (B10b). This prompts a push for more “forest thinning” to reduce “clear cutting.” Because this reduces industry “logging profits,” industry opposes it (B11). Logging interests greatly fear this, because reduced profits decrease their ability to promote “clear cutting” (R7) and oppose “forest thinning” (R12).

The Whole Mess