PERC's comment: "EPAโs proposal to lower the particulate matter standard without first fixing barriers to prescribed fire could worsen air quality and extend the wildfire crisis."
https://t.co/P0jD2swgtH
This paper also looks at the way researchers rank publication tradeoffs. Economists are willing to forgo 1.4 Science, Nature, PNAS publications for 1 top 5 econ pub. Natural Scientists would give up 3.6 top 5 econ pubs for 1 Science, Nature, or PNAS pub.
@teevrat Great points! I also feel like sometimes the government needs are simple analyses of good data, which may not be viewed as contributions to the literature.
@MichaelWWara I like the spirit of this thread. I am concerned that including wildfire emissions would encourage more aggressive suppression of all fire. Large fuel loads are part of the problem of catastrophic fire. Maybe this would favor more mechanical fuel thinning.
5/ I enjoyed collaborating with great colleagues and getting to read and reread lots of great papers.
@mwibbenmeyer@pbaylis@MarshallBBurke and many others not on twitter
1/ What does economics have to do with wildfire management? A lot. Our newish review article in @AnnualReviews Resource Economics attempts to survey the contributions of economics to our understanding of wildfire management. https://t.co/rpu2SvDiF7
4/ Empirical econ has helped us understand the impacts of fire and societies willingness to pay to avoid the consequences of fire. We also discuss opportunities for future work on the economics of wildfire.