Evaluating differential air quality impacts of prescribed fire and wildfire in the United States
Abstract
Increasing wildfire activities in the United States have generated far-reaching effects on air pollution and human health. While prescribed fires are used as a preventive strategy to reduce wildfire risks, the health impacts of their smoke remain uncertain. Small-scale case studies indicate that prescribed fires generally produce lower pollutant emissions than uncontrolled wildfires, potentially benefiting air quality. However, the extent to which this translates into reduced population-level smoke exposure remains uncertain due to a lack of robust, large-scale quantitative evidence. Moreover, the factors driving differences in air quality impacts between prescribed fires and wildfires were underexplored. Using fire data in California, Florida, and Georgia (2006-2020) and a causal forest approach, we quantified and compared the impacts of prescribed fires and wildfires on air quality, assessed their differences in population-level smoke exposure, and identified key factors influencing their smoke exposure levels. On a per square-kilometer basis, prescribed fires resulted in over six times less population-level smoke exposure compared to wildfires. Additionally, prescribed fires were associated with lower smoke exposure in regions with higher relative humidity and precipitation. This work could enable the broad risk-benefit assessment to guide the judicious use of prescribed fires and optimize public health outcomes while mitigating wildfire threats.
Related
- Quantifying Impacts of Wildfire Smoke on Crop Yields in California
- Multisource Remote Sensing and Geospatial Analysis of Vineyard Wildfire Impacts and Exposure: The 2019 Kincade Fire
- Confusion in evaluating research quality comes from lack of clarity: The case for explicit research questions
- Quality Certification and Coopetition in Live-Streaming E-Commerce: A Differential Game with Consumer Reference Effects
- Evaluating an LLM-assisted workflow for clinical documentation: A pilot randomized controlled trial on time and quality
BibTeX
@misc{chang2026evaluating,
title = {{Evaluating differential air quality impacts of prescribed fire and wildfire in the United States}},
author = {Ting-Hsuan Chang and Minghao Qiu and Yaguang Wei and Xiao Wu},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2609.12977},
eprint = {2609.12977},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.12977},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Evaluating differential air quality impacts of prescribed fire and wildfire in the United States
AU - Ting-Hsuan Chang
AU - Minghao Qiu
AU - Yaguang Wei
AU - Xiao Wu
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/11
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2609.12977
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.12977
AB - Increasing wildfire activities in the United States have generated far-reaching effects on air pollution and human health. While prescribed fires are used as a preventive strategy to reduce wildfire risks, the health impacts of their smoke remain uncertain. Small-scale case studies indicate that prescribed fires generally produce lower pollutant emissions than uncontrolled wildfires, potentially benefiting air quality. However, the extent to which this translates into reduced population-level smoke exposure remains uncertain due to a lack of robust, large-scale quantitative evidence. Moreover, the factors driving differences in air quality impacts between prescribed fires and wildfires were underexplored. Using fire data in California, Florida, and Georgia (2006-2020) and a causal forest approach, we quantified and compared the impacts of prescribed fires and wildfires on air quality, assessed their differences in population-level smoke exposure, and identified key factors influencing their smoke exposure levels. On a per square-kilometer basis, prescribed fires resulted in over six times less population-level smoke exposure compared to wildfires. Additionally, prescribed fires were associated with lower smoke exposure in regions with higher relative humidity and precipitation. This work could enable the broad risk-benefit assessment to guide the judicious use of prescribed fires and optimize public health outcomes while mitigating wildfire threats.
ER -