FAQs: Wildfire vs. Prescribed Burning - A Pollution Comparison

The FAQs below are supported by various scientific reviews and case studies, including peer reviewed research on prescribed vs. wildfire smoke impacts, data on emission factors, publications on fire and air quality, and real-world examples from the UK and elsewhere.

These sources collectively reinforce that wildfire smoke far exceeds prescribed burn smoke in both quantity and harm, and that controlled burning, when used judiciously, is a net benefit for air quality and environmental protection.

• What is the fundamental difference between controlled vegetation burning (prescribed fire) and wildfires?

• How do pollutant emissions from prescribed burns compare to those from wildfires?

• What role do fire duration, intensity, and scale play in comparing air pollution impacts?

• What are the human health and environmental impacts of wildfire smoke versus prescribed fire smoke?

• How do wildfires and prescribed burns contribute to climate impact?

• Is the perception that "controlled burning causes more pollution than wildfires" accurate?

• How does public discourse and policy sometimes misinterpret the role of prescribed burning?

• What do case studies from the U.K., US, and Australia reveal about prescribed burning and wildfires?

What is the fundamental difference between controlled vegetation burning (prescribed fire) and wildfires?

Controlled vegetation burning, or prescribed fire, is the intentional and planned use of fire to manage landscapes for specific objectives, such as reducing fuel loads or maintaining ecosystems.

These fires are conducted under controlled conditions, considering factors like weather, humidity, and wind to ensure a more efficient and cleaner burn. In contrast, wildfires are unplanned, uncontrolled fires that often occur under extreme conditions, burning vast areas indiscriminately and often with high intensity.

How do pollutant emissions from prescribed burns compare to those from wildfires?

Wildfires consistently produce significantly more smoke and pollution per unit of area or fuel compared to prescribed fires. For instance, wildfires can produce roughly twice as much fine particulate matter (PM₂.₅) per ton of fuel consumed due to drier, more erratic conditions that lead to incomplete combustion. They also consume heavier fuel loads, resulting in greater total particulate mass.

Wildfires generally emit more carbon monoxide (CO), methane, and other incomplete-combustion gases because the burning is less efficient, often involving extensive smoldering phases. While both types of fires emit nitrogen oxides (NOₓ), large wildfires produce a higher total burden due to their size and duration, potentially leading to regional ozone formation.

Wildfires also tend to emit more black carbon and hazardous air toxics like formaldehyde and benzene due to the larger volumes of biomass burned with incomplete combustion.

What role do fire duration, intensity, and scale play in comparing air pollution impacts?

The duration, intensity, and scale of fires are critical factors. Prescribed burns are typically limited in size (e.g., a few hectares) and short-lived (a few hours to a couple of days), with managers able to somewhat predict and manage smoke trajectory.

Wildfires, however, can engulf hundreds of thousands of acres and rage for weeks or even months, continuously producing smoke. This difference in scale means wildfires have a far larger total emissions footprint. Wildfires often burn under hot, dry, windy conditions that lead to high intensity and less efficient combustion, consuming more fuel (including coarse fuels and sometimes soil/peat) and producing more smoke per acre.

In contrast, prescribed burns are designed to be low to moderate intensity, consuming fine fuels while leaving larger trees and soil intact, leading to more complete combustion. The prolonged duration of wildfire smoke leads to extended exposure for downwind populations, whereas prescribed fire smoke is more episodic and easier to avoid.

What are the human health and environmental impacts of wildfire smoke versus prescribed fire smoke?

Wildfire smoke poses a significantly greater threat to human health due to its intensity and reach, often causing hazardous air quality across entire regions and leading to major spikes in hospital visits for respiratory and cardiac conditions. For example, a single wildfire event in northern England was estimated to lead to between 14 and 42 premature deaths.

Prescribed burns, being smaller and less intense, rarely cause such broad health crises, though they can impact air quality locally for short periods. Environmentally, controlled burns, typically low-intensity and part of planned management, can benefit fire-adapted ecosystems by clearing undergrowth and maintaining habitat diversity.

Wildfires, especially severe ones, can devastate ecosystems, leading to habitat loss, invasive species encroachment, and long-term ecological damage, including the burning of large trees and even sterilizing soils, particularly in peatlands.

How do wildfires and prescribed burns contribute to climate impact?

Both types of fires release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. However, prescribed burns are often designed to burn fine fuels, releasing carbon from recent growth that can be reabsorbed as vegetation regrows.

Severe wildfires, conversely, can release massive amounts of carbon stored for decades or centuries, especially when burning into thick forests or peatlands. Peat fires are particularly polluting, releasing enormous, effectively irreversible CO₂ and methane fluxes. While rotational heather burning in UK peatlands releases CO₂, a single uncontrolled peat wildfire can equal or exceed that.

Strategic use of prescribed fire is shown to reduce overall carbon emissions by preventing intense wildfires, as it leads to less total fuel consumed and more efficient burning.

Preventing megafires also reduces black carbon emissions, a climate-warming pollutant.

Is the perception that "controlled burning causes more pollution than wildfires" accurate?

No, the claim that controlled burns contribute significantly more to air pollution than wildfires is largely a myth not supported by scientific evidence. Wildfires overwhelmingly emit more PM₂.₅, CO, and other pollutants in total, despite public discourse sometimes focusing on visible smoke from managed burns.

Empirical data from the western U.S. shows that even when the area treated by prescribed fire was similar to areas burned by wildfires, wildfire emissions were an order of magnitude higher. Studies also indicate that prescribed fire treatments reduce subsequent wildfire severity and smoke production. Restricting prescribed burns due to smoke concerns can inadvertently lead to greater pollution later by allowing fuels to accumulate, increasing the risk of larger, more destructive wildfires.

How does public discourse and policy sometimes misinterpret the role of prescribed burning?

Public discourse and policymaking can sometimes misinterpret or overstate the air pollution role of prescribed burning. Concerns about local smoke impacts or the idea that "any fire is bad" can lead to overly strict regulations on prescribed burns, ironically hindering effective fuel management.

This short-term view fails to acknowledge that not burning now can lead to far worse smoke later from uncontrolled wildfires. Social media and local news may amplify rare instances where prescribed burns "go wrong," skewing public perception and sometimes leading agencies to pause programs.

This underutilization of prescribed burning due to misconceptions exacerbates wildfire risk and pollution, despite scientific consensus that strategic prescribed burning is a net positive for long-term air quality.

What do case studies from the U.K., US, and Australia reveal about prescribed burning and wildfires?

In the UK uplands, rotational heather burning is controversial. While it can cause acute local pollution, severe peat wildfires (like those in 2018) cause far worse and more widespread pollution, impacting millions and releasing substantial carbon. The key distinction is that controlled burns typically only singe surface vegetation, avoiding peat ignition, unlike severe wildfires.

In the western U.S., decades of fire suppression have led to heavy fuel accumulation, resulting in larger, more intense wildfires and severe smoke pollution. Reintroducing prescribed burns is showing promising results, with studies indicating significant reductions in PM₂.₅ emissions and smoke-related mortality when wildfires are replaced by controlled burns.

The southeastern U.S., with its extensive use of prescribed burning, experiences fewer large wildfires and avoids the worst smoke disasters, despite more frequent but brief local smoke plumes.

In Australia, Indigenous practices and modern management recognize the value of controlled burning. In northern savannas, cool-season burns significantly reduce intense, polluting late dry-season wildfires, leading to quantifiable climate benefits. After the catastrophic Black Summer fires of 2019-2020, there's growing public acceptance for more prescribed burning in southern Australia, with agencies focusing on smoke management techniques.

These case studies collectively reinforce that while prescribed burns have localized, manageable smoke impacts, uncontrolled wildfires lead to far greater regional pollution and harm.

📧 Keep updated on this and all moorland issues - sign up for our FREE weekly newsletter.