Research

INTRODUCTION

Drought and associated wildfire activity in the southwestern United States have increased in frequency, extent, and severity in the early 21st century, and will likely continue to intensify under climate change (Cayan et al. 2010, Westerling et al. 2016, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2022). Declines in precipitation and high evaporative demand induced by warming temperatures are driving down soil moisture, streamflow, and groundwater to alter hydrological and biological processes at multiple scales (Munson et al. 2021). These periods of water shortages also dry out fuels, which, along with a century of fire suppression policies, increase the risk of severe wildfire (Hurteau et al. 2014, Abatzoglou and Williams 2016). Improvements to identify the spatial and temporal scale at which ecosystems are currently exposed, and may be exposed in the future, to drought, wildfire, and climate change can help predict potential ecosystem impacts.

Climate change–induced droughts and enhanced wildfire activity have already triggered ecosystem transformations, including widespread plant mortality, loss of biodiversity, and invasion of non-native species (MEA 2005, Allen et al. 2010). However, ecosystems vary in their ability to resist and recover from these stressors, and many areas may be slower to experience stress or may adapt to these intensified disturbance regimes. As a result, the degree to which natural resources, including the vegetation, wildlife, and water provided by ecosystems, are affected has high variability and is difficult to predict. New on-the-ground insight that distinguishes the scale and severity at which natural resources are responding to climate change and associated stressors may clarify their vulnerability and support prioritization of management actions to adapt to these responses.

Under the growing threat of drought and wildfire, natural resource managers face enormous challenges to sustain ecosystems they manage for future generations. Agencies and organizations have developed management actions to address these stressors at multiple spatial and temporal scales and under a range of natural resource responses (Dunn et al. 2020, Shi and Moser 2021). However, the degree to which management actions match the scale and align with the severity of responses to generate effective outcomes is not well understood (Preston et al. 2011, Kemp et al. 2015). Many natural resource managers have historically adopted incremental, “business as usual” actions at local and short-term scales, but there have been many recent calls for the development of novel strategies at larger scales that can generate long-term change to the structure and function of social-ecological systems (Kates et al. 2012, Colloff et al. 2021). Anticipatory strategies consider future changes in the condition of natural resources by capitalizing on forecasts of climate or wildfire to guide actions under different scenarios (Bradford et al. 2018). Approaches to assess natural resource vulnerability to drought, wildfire, and climate change (Glick et al. 2011) and plans aimed at minimizing the severity of these stressors (mitigation) or mediating their consequences (adaptation) are becoming increasingly available (Bierbaum et al. 2013, IPCC 2022). As the decline in the condition of multiple natural resources accelerates because of intensification of these stressors, recovery through management actions may not be possible and strategies can shift toward accepting or directing ecosystem transformation and facilitating ecosystem replacement (Schuurman et al. 2021). Despite advancements in designing anticipatory approaches, there is a lack of knowledge on how on-the-ground management strategies are evolving to address the growing scale and severity of interacting stressors to increase future preparedness.

Anticipatory natural resource management can be achieved if barriers to implementation are addressed and there is adequate access to financial resources, relevant tools, and timely information (Bierbaum et al. 2013). Large-scale scientific knowledge about stressors and natural resource responses and policies to guide management actions often require years to develop and can be difficult to readily apply to meet local management needs (Kates et al. 2012, Bradford et al. 2018). To address this knowledge-action gap, natural resource managers can take advantage of more actionable down-scaled information and engage in interdisciplinary and cross-boundary collaboration (Knutti 2019). A more complete assessment of barriers to anticipatory management can help shape where future investments should focus and how actions can be more effective.

A framework was developed on the basis of the concepts presented above that tied together both the spatial and temporal scale at which drought and wildfire stressors and natural resources occur in relation to management actions, and the degree to which these management actions align with the severity of natural resource responses. Refinements to characterizing scale and severity from stressor to ecosystem response and management action can improve upon previous vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience frameworks. At the core of the new framework is the well-established principle that stressors and natural resource conditions occur at multiple scales across space, from local to global, and through time related to the rate and duration at which stressors and natural resources occur (reviewed in Munson et al. 2021; Fig. 1a). Similarly, management jurisdictions and actions occur across these same spatiotemporal gradients (Cash et al. 2006). Management jurisdictions and actions may match the spatiotemporal scale of a stressor and natural resource, such as when a post-fire rehabilitation team plans recovery efforts following a large forest wildfire spanning multiple land jurisdictions over the course of a few weeks. However, mismatches in scale also occur: for example, when a local management office creates a seasonal livestock grazing plan for a local allotment amid a multi-decadal drought induced by climate change across regional grasslands.

Embedded at all spatial and temporal scales are a range of natural resource conditions that change in response to growing stressor intensity (Fig. 1b). At low wildfire or drought stress, natural resource conditions can generally be maintained at a high level, but as these stressors intensify, natural resources conditions may undergo low to moderate responses that result in reductions in natural resource conditions that are generally reversible once the stress decreases (Munson et al. 2021). Under high stressor intensity, natural resource conditions may pass a threshold that produces a severe ecosystem or natural resource transformation that is irreversible (Scheffer et al. 2001). Management actions are targeted to address this range of natural resource responses and include a spectrum of action types, including “business as usual,” mitigation and adaptation, preparing for an ecosystem transformation, and facilitating replacement of lost natural resource conditions (Glick et al. 2011, Schuurman et al. 2022).

Similar to a mismatch in spatiotemporal scale, management actions may not align with the severity of response the natural resource is undergoing. For example, a local management office sets high stocking rates, a “business as usual” action, despite drought-induced grass mortality that is a severe natural resource response (Fig. 1b). This misalignment between a management action and natural resource response can result in a lack of control in the response and ultimately feedback to create larger and longer-term degradation of natural resource conditions that may become irreversible. A misalignment may be due to barriers in implementing management actions, such as staff shortages resulting in a lack of monitoring vegetation condition. Alternatively, a management action may align with natural resource response, such as when restoration seeding with fire-adapted species occurs in response to the loss of the forest understory following a wildfire. When the management action type is anticipatory of a severe natural resource response, such as conducting prescribed burns when natural fuel accumulation is occurring, the decline of natural resource condition may be buffered or the recovery to a high level of natural resource condition facilitated.

The goal of this study is to test this conceptual framework by conducting surveys and interviews of staff associated with natural resource management to gain new insight into their perceptions of drought and wildfire, and how management actions occur and can be improved with respect to natural resource responses. Data collection focused on natural resource managers of the Colorado Plateau in the southwestern U.S. (Vaughn 2024), a 340,000 km² dryland region where Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado intersect. The Colorado Plateau has already begun to experience substantial drought and wildfire intensification (Schwinning et al. 2008, Swetnam et al. 2016), including regional-scale plant mortality (Breshears et al. 2005) and fire-induced irreversible ecosystem transformations (Coop et al. 2020). The plateau contains the largest concentration of public lands in the contiguous U.S., where there is a wide range of land uses, including livestock grazing, recreation, and energy development (Copeland et al. 2017). The diverse land administration and management roles throughout the Colorado Plateau are matched with heterogeneous topography, soils, and plant communities that comprise grassland, shrubland, woodland, and forest ecosystems. Survey and interview questions to test the framework focused on four primary themes to understand natural resource manager perceptions of:

1. The spatial and temporal scale at which drought, wildfire, and related stressors have been occurring and may occur in the future;
2. Ecosystem and associated natural resource responses to these stressors;
3. The match between the spatiotemporal scale at which management actions are conducted and the scale at which stressors and natural resource responses are occurring, and the alignment of actions with the severity of natural resource responses;
4. Barriers to implementing management actions that align with natural resource responses.

Expectations were that natural resource management staff would perceive drought and wildfire to be growing in size and duration, and natural resource responses to be increasing in severity, because of first-hand experiences and the growing availability of information on their intensification in the region. An additional hypothesis was that there would be a large mismatch in scale between management actions and natural resource responses to stressors, and many “business as usual” actions that misaligned with an increasing severity of natural resource responses because of barriers that stem from limited financial resources, information, leadership, and communication.

METHODS

Mixed methods research design

To better understand natural resource management perspectives of stressors, ecosystem responses, management approaches, and barriers in Colorado Plateau ecosystems, a mixed methods exploratory sequential design was used, which included a qualitive interview and analysis, followed by a quantitative survey and analysis that enhanced and expanded upon the interview results. Interviews and surveys targeted staff associated with natural resource management on the Colorado Plateau, which included natural resource managers (e.g., resource specialists, fire managers, biological technicians), scientists (e.g., researchers), and administrators (e.g., refuge, park, or field office directors) across multiple agencies.

Interviews

A comprehensive interview guide was developed that included an introductory explanation of the aim of the interview and questions to better understand the demographics of interviewees, followed by a series of questions that addressed the four themes (sensu Vaughn 2024). A. Vaughn interviewed 37 staff associated with natural resource management who had recently experienced large drought and/or wildfire effects on Colorado Plateau management units using a snowball sampling approach (Noy 2008). New participants were interviewed until no additional staff with relevant experience were available and unique themes (based on interview codes) and perspectives on those themes had been largely heard from previous interviewees. The semi-structured interviews were conducted from June 2021 to May 2022, the majority of which were completed remotely because of the COVID-19 pandemic (29 using video and 5 audio conferencing) and three in person. Interviews ranged from 23 min to 1 h and 48 min, with an average of 45 min. Interviews were recorded and notes were taken in the form of timestamps or key phrases that could be referred to later.

Immediately following the interviews, interviews were transcribed with the Otter.ai transcription software (Otter.ai 2023) and were followed by revisions to correct errors and provide clarity. Interview respondents were assigned unique identifiers (R1, R2, etc.) on the basis of the order in which they were interviewed. Sentences and passages in transcribed interviews were coded by using Nvivo Pro 11 software (QSR International 2015) to identify themes and commonalities. A grounded theory coding approach was used with related codes compiled into categories that addressed the four primary research themes using an axial coding process (Saldaña 2021).

Surveys

Based on key takeaways and emergent themes explored in the interviews, survey questions were developed for a more extensive population of staff associated with natural resource management on the Colorado Plateau. Similar to the interview guide, the survey contained a brief introduction followed by questions to determine survey population demographics and address the four themes of the research. The survey consisted of quantitative questions, including a combination of close-ended (yes or no) questions, select-all-that-apply questions, ranked choice questions, and Likert-scale questions. The survey also included qualitative open-ended and fill-in-the-blank questions. The survey was designed to be completed in approximately 15 to 20 min and was implemented within Qualtrics software (Qualtrics 2023) and hosted by Northern Arizona University (NAU). An introduction and link to the NAU survey was broadly distributed directly via email and across organizational list-servs, newsletters, internal networks, and at in-person regional workshops and conferences to which Colorado Plateau natural resource managers receive information (Vaughn 2024). The survey link was open from April to October 2022.

Surveys were reviewed and were removed if respondents were not familiar with natural resource management practices based on their job description or had jurisdictions wholly outside the Colorado Plateau, left 20% or more of the survey answers blank, or completed the entire survey in less than 5 minutes (faster than the minimum time recommended; Huang et al. 2012). Two hundred and fourteen people completed the survey, with 151 meeting all the criteria for inclusion in analyses. Short answers were reformatted to categorical format so that they could be compared across respondents. The ‘frequencies’ tool in SPSS (IBM Corp. 2017) was used to calculate counts and percent of total respondents for each category of response to relevant questions. Chi-square and correlation tests were employed using the SPSS ‘crosstabs’ contingency table tool to test differences in the observed versus expected distribution of answers and relationships between respondent demographics and responses.

RESULTS

Natural resource management staff background

Most of the 37 interview (Fig. 2a) and 151 survey (Fig. 2b) participants worked for federal agencies, including the National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS), with additional state or county agencies, non-governmental or private organization participants (Vaughn 2024). The survey also included participants from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Over half of interview (Fig. 2c) and survey (Fig. 2d) participants self-identified as having an occupation that fell into a natural resource manager category, with the categories of scientist or administrator familiar with natural resource management comprising 15%–24% of remaining participants. Most interview (Fig. 2e) and survey (Fig. 2f) respondents came from Arizona, followed by New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah, with some of the survey participants coming from other states in the Southwest. Over 40% of interview (Fig. 2g) and survey (Fig. 2h) participants had a master’s as a terminal degree, followed by bachelor’s and doctorate degrees, and a small percentage of survey respondents had a high school terminal degree. Over half of interview (Fig. 2i) and survey (Fig. 2j) respondents had been at their current job for 10 y, followed by 2–10 y, and about 10% had been at their current job less than 2 y.

Ecosystem stressors

Drought was consistently the most pressing concern of interview participants, although wildfire and other climate change stressors were frequently mentioned. Respondents pointed out that declines in precipitation, streamflow, and snowpack have led to major changes from aquatic to low and high elevation terrestrial ecosystems across the Colorado Plateau:

Aquatic systems are getting hammered the most immediately, right now. Less snow on the mountain, less water in the reservoir, less releases from the reservoir into the streams and creeks and rivers. [Water in the river] doesn’t even flow all the way through our park every year anymore. (R2)

Respondents discussed their concerns related to how the monsoon summer rains, an important source of water input on the Colorado Plateau, have become more variable, with recent years having nearly zero summer precipitation (R4, R5, R7, R10, R13, R18, R23, R31). A BLM ecologist discussed how ranchers on public lands have experienced firsthand how significantly the water table has dropped over the past 60 y, noting that, “It used to be that eight months out of the year [wells] could have running water, now it has gone down to three months” (R19).

Although wildfire is a natural component of many Colorado Plateau ecosystems, the frequency and severity of fires, and the ability for landscapes to recover, were concerns for interview respondents:

Wildfires are not a surprise, I think what has been surprising is the frequency and the intensity has changed, I think that has surprised me and the realization that these systems may not succeed back to their later seral stages. (R33)

An NPS natural resource manager with over a decade of experience managing the same park unit expressed concerns that the fires occurring in this region are becoming more intense, burning hotter and larger than historically across the landscape (R28). An NPS natural resource advisor with over two decades of experience noticed that fires burn more consistently through the pinyon-juniper woodland than they did 15–20 y ago, where the community used to act as an effective barrier for slowing or stopping fire spread (R34). A wildlife biologist for USFS felt that it has been noticeably harder for the land to recover following wildfires (R24).

Multiple interview respondents noted that synergistic stressors are coming into play to create a combination of worsening ecological conditions and management challenges:

It’s synergistic, overall everything’s coming together culminating and creating these really challenging, really dynamic fires that we’re not used to and weren’t anticipated. (R23)

A USFS natural resource specialist pointed out the concerning synergies of pine beetles and drought conditions leading to woodland die-off, which combined with warming are leading to shifts in fire regimes (R26). Invasive species, including cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and tamarisk (Tamarix spp.), were a commonly stated stressor that had synergy with drought, wildfire, and climate change. A vegetation specialist responded that altering the fire regime has created a “downward spiral” of ecological impacts because introduced species such as annual invasive grasses “seem to thrive off of disturbance and fire and management should attempt to break that cycle” (R17).

Survey respondents experienced both drought and wildfire to a high degree in the Colorado Plateau ecosystems they managed, which was consistent with interview participants. Drought was experienced more severely than wildfire (χ² = 20.87, P < 0.01) with more responses of “completely” for drought and “moderately” for wildfire (Fig. 3). There were no respondents who felt that drought had not been experienced in the ecosystems in which they worked, whereas a small number had not experienced wildfire.

Ecosystem and natural resource responses

Interview respondents experienced growing severity of ecosystem responses to drought and wildfire:

Historically, we did see high severity fires in forests, but they were very, very small, usually less than 200 acres. Whereas now, these high severity patches and these type conversions are 1000s of acres. (R33)

Several managers of small units felt that it was imperative for management agencies to consider landscape scale, cross-boundary changes including lands outside the unit. For example, with noticeably worsening drought conditions, a manager of a small national monument felt that their water conservation efforts were limited because of the spatial scale of the park and expressed hope for greater collaboration with lands managed by other agencies, nearby ranches, and private landowners (R5). In contrast, respondents working on large landscapes discussed the challenges to understand the scale of changes across the multiple ecosystems they work within a single unit, and how stressors will have varying impacts, and sometimes cascading effects, across ecosystems (R3, R4, R7, R16, R22, R34). Interview participants perceived ecosystem changes to be occurring more quickly than models predicted and felt that management had often not prepared for changes quickly to keep up with the rate of ecological change (R1, R2, R13, R16, R18, R19, R22, R26, R30, R33).

Interview participants provided diverse examples of the types of ecosystem responses to drought and wildfire. A natural resource manager emphasized that certain ecosystems and species are more vulnerable to ecosystem stressors and are going to change very quickly and noticeably in comparison to others (R8). Forty-three percent of the interview respondents discussed the rapid pace of pinyon-juniper die-off on the Colorado Plateau as an area of major concern. Riparian ecosystems were also brought up as being vulnerable to drought stress, with respondents observing water resources drying up faster than projected (R2, R4, R10, R11, R13, R24, R27). Declining water levels, such as on Lake Powell and the Colorado River, were mentioned as areas of major concern. Forty percent of respondents had personally experienced the impacts of large-scale, high-severity wildfires, and viewed wildfire as a primary stressor that was contributing to rapid ecological transformation. Interview respondents voiced uncertainty about the magnitude of change that will occur in the coming decades, in part because of inaccuracies in model forecasts (R2, R8, R19, R23, R36). Despite perceptions of future uncertainty, a separate set of natural resource managers leaned toward wanting to use the best available science and models to take proactive action (R4, R13, R22, R24, R26, R29, R35).

A majority (89%) of survey respondents characterized the ecosystem responses from drought and wildfire stressors happening at scales and timeframes outside of what they viewed as “normal.” This perspective was largely attributable to most respondents experiencing changes at large spatial scales (Fig. 4a), but unlike interview participants, most survey respondents perceived these changes to occur at moderate timeframes (Fig. 4b). When asked to rank the severity to which drought, wildfire, and climate change stressors have historically impacted and currently impact ecosystems, 16% reported below moderate impacts (scale of 0–4), 70% of natural resource management staff reported moderate to slightly above moderate degrees of impact (5–8), and 14% reported severe impacts (9–10) (Fig. 5). When asked the same question for the future, the level of perceived impact increased considerably (χ² = 305.52, P < 0.001) with 5% below, 38% moderate to slightly above, and 57% severe.

Management strategies

Interview participants often expressed that they did not take a proactive approach to addressing ecosystem responses and were forced to act more retroactively because they could not predict what changes were coming and resources were often only available after a disturbance. A natural resource manager with experience at multiple agencies stated frustration that “we’re doing the same old stuff that we’ve done for years and years and years” (R8). Similarly, multiple interview respondents discussed ecosystem type conversion due to stressors and shared their viewpoint that some ecosystems will not be able to return to their historic state:

People want to protect the PJ [pinyon-juniper] so much, and we have PJ resiliency projects and all these things, and I think it’s wonderful, but at the same time, I think we need to be realistic, we really just think we’re going to be able to engineer the same biological system to occupy the same ecological space when the fundamental patterns, the climate, has dramatically shifted. (R2)

Interview respondents expressed uncertainty about the definition of “adaptation” and indicated that the term is used in multiple contexts, which promotes a sense of confusion. This ambiguity impacted their ability to apply for funding, carry out projects, implement adaptation strategies, and communicate with stakeholders that may be less familiar with the term (R18, R27, R29).

For those interview respondents who provided more concrete examples of adaptation strategies, their focus included actions for fire management, drought management, vegetation management and restoration, science-informed decision-making, proactive leadership and planning, proactive training and preparedness, communication, and collaboration (Appendix 1). Prescribed fire was mentioned as an effective strategy by nearly every respondent, and there were no negative comments about its implementation. However, several respondents acknowledged the disconnect between scientists and managers who understood the positive effects of prescribed fire and policymakers and society who did not support its widespread implementation. Tree thinning, reduction in livestock grazing, and protection of water resources were common strategies mentioned by respondents to address drought. Sixty percent of the respondents mentioned restoration as a key approach to climate adaptation and discussed specific strategies they had implemented. Several respondents across agencies acknowledged their concern that without implementing a certain level of planned introduction of species or assisted migration, ecosystems will experience significant amounts of biodiversity loss. Public support was viewed as an important component of gaining approval to enact adaptive strategies, allowing for them to be implemented more quickly and decreasing the number of negative perceptions.

Nearly half of survey participants responded that ecosystems would moderately recover from drought and wildfire impacts without management action, with a skew toward less than moderately, and only 1% of participants responded “completely” (Fig. 6). Fifty-three percent of survey participants reported their control over shaping the direction of ecosystem and natural resource responses as low (1–3), and no survey participants stated that they had nearly full or total control (9–10) (Fig. 7). There was no statistically significant difference among agencies in their perspectives on their control over shaping ecosystem response (χ² = 74.56, P = 0.16). However, many interview participants expressed psychological impacts and ecological trauma suffered by managing in times of uncertainty and the presence of extreme ecological stress and change. When survey participants chose multiple descriptors to characterize the responses of their agency or organization to ecological stressors, the most frequently selected descriptor was limited (15%), followed by reactive (13%) and inadequate (12%) (Fig. 8). These negative responses were countered by respondents feeling supported (10%) more frequently than unsupported (6%), strategic (11%) rather than unplanned (5%), and flexible (10%) more than inflexible (3%).

In contrast to interview participants expressing uncertainty about the term “adaptation,” 74% of survey respondents reported that they had a clear understanding of the term in the context of managing novel ecological stressors. The IPCC (2022) definition of adaptation is: “an adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climate and its effects in order to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities.” Compared to the IPCC definition, 30% of responses focused on a general conceptual understanding of anticipating and adjusting to current and projected climate change, 32% gave specific actions without a broader definition, 14% integrated both general and specific understanding, and 24% provided a partial or incomplete understanding of adaptation that described mitigation, a “business as usual” strategy, or pointed out limitations instead of providing a definition. Fifty-two percent of survey participants felt that planned adaptation actions are the same as actions in the past, whereas 48% felt that planned actions are different from past actions.

Management barriers

Many interview participants felt that management barriers prevented the creation of lasting ecological resilience into relatively small management units that are influenced by dynamic drivers of change acting at a global scale. A USFS employee with decades of experience felt that even the most effective, large-scale efforts can only limit environmental degradation due to drought and wildfire to a certain extent, finding that worsening climate change impacts will surpass even the most well-planned adaptation efforts (R25). Respondents often felt that the large-scale and long-term actions needed to address rapidly developing management challenges were not being met because of the lengthy amount of time to get projects approved (R9, R18, R22, R34), the difficulty in choosing which projects to prioritize (R5, R10, R14, R23, R25, R27, R31), and the gaps in knowledge that could be addressed by long-term studies (R1, R5, R8, R13, R14, R15, R20, R21, R22, R23, R24, R27, R30, R33, R37) that could deliver necessary information for decision-making.

Multiple interview respondents discussed adaptation strategies they would like to implement but brought up difficulties arising from the competitive aspects of obtaining funding (R10, R11, R16, R21, R28, R30). A resource manager for the BLM found that often research findings of successful restoration could not be applicable to large-scale landscapes, where the costs of implementing action would be unfeasible, and suggested that researchers consider focusing on more affordable strategies for managers of larger public lands (R35). Interview respondents expressed concern over a lack of resources to implement proactive fire management strategies, which many felt was changing in a positive direction, but others argued that more resources are allocated to fire suppression and reactive management strategies.

In addition to staffing resources to implement projects, many interview respondents expressed concern over the high turnover or attrition of staff and the difficulty in filling open positions because of low pay, only having seasonal positions available, competition with the private sector, and the remoteness of some locations. Agency inefficiency was noted as a barrier to adaptation by 57% of respondents, with 22% of respondents specifically discussing struggles getting support for proactive strategies from leadership. Sixty-eight percent of respondents mentioned government and policy as primary barriers for effective adaptation.

I mean ground up solutions are great, but the problem is so big that I just see the need for more direction, and funding, and maybe orders like you need to do this, and here's the money to do it, and this is what you need to do here. Because it's such a behemoth of a problem. (R28)

Fire managers, in particular, discussed how restrictive federal and state policies have placed strong barriers on their ability to effectively manage prescribed fires (R1, R11, R12).

Interview respondents with educational and vocational experience in physical and biological sciences mentioned the need for increased studies more frequently, whereas respondents with management-focused vocations felt concerned about an overwhelming amount of scientific information that they did not have time to study and interpret. Many respondents identified a knowledge-action gap as a barrier to effective management, whereas several others highlighted their interest in better implementable guidance through training and workshops and step-by-step guides that outline specific adaptation approaches. Multiple respondents felt that there is too strong of a divide between researchers and practitioners, and both would benefit from increased collaborative efforts.

According to survey responses, financial resources in combination with staffing resources were the most common barriers (28%), followed by solely financial resources (15%), solely staffing resources (13%), collaboration and training (13%), science and information needs (10%), leadership support (9%), and time, legal, and Congressional support emerged as “other” needs (12%) (Table 1). In contrast to interview participants who expressed they had too much information, slightly over half of survey participants (55%) reported that they do not have enough available information to address and respond to climate change, drought, and wildfire. Twenty-seven percent of the short answers from the surveys suggested that greater clarity and precision was needed on the specific areas within management units that were vulnerable to stressors and what actions would be most adaptable under climate change were needed (Appendix 2). Forward thinking and new adaptation-focused data and information were described in 18% of short answers.

DISCUSSION

Ecosystem stressors

Although the Colorado Plateau has experienced decadal drought-fire cycles for centuries (Betancourt 1990, Swetnam and Betancourt 1998), there is evidence that droughts and wildfires are intensifying in the 21st century (Breshears et al. 2005, Swetnam et al. 2016; Appendix 3). In recent decades, the region has experienced decreasing and more inter-annual variability in precipitation (Zhang et al. 2021) and increasing warming that have collectively contributed to enhanced drought severity (Williams et al. 2022). In support of the hypothesis from the conceptual framework, the growing scale and severity of drought and wildfire were becoming realized among natural resource managers charged with overseeing the largest concentration of public lands in the continental U.S. A majority of the respondents described the ecosystems in which they work as being “substantially” and “completely” affected by drought and wildfire. Drought was likely a stressor characterized as more extreme than wildfire by managers because a majority of the Colorado Plateau, and most of its managed public lands, are in relatively low elevation regions < 1800 m that historically had low fuel loads, where high amounts of exposed bedrock, deep canyons, and cliff bands provide natural fuel breaks. Drought can generally act at larger spatial and longer temporal scales than wildfire, which is dependent on a suite of other variables, including fuel load, weather, topography, and ignition source (Littell et al. 2016). The timing of survey and interviews corresponded to the longest megadrought since 800 C.E., as revealed by tree-ring records (Williams et al. 2022).

Multiple respondents recognized drought-wildfire synergies because climate and wildfire occurrence are strongly connected at seasonal scales through fuel moisture content (Riley et al. 2013) and over multiple years through the accretion of fuel load (Margolis et al. 2017). Interview responses suggested that many natural resource managers were noticing additional interacting stressors that were creating feedback loops and an intensification of impacts, including the increased role of invasive species that have increased fuel loads and wildfire occurrences (Bishop et al. 2019) and insects and pathogens that have accelerated tree mortality (Breshears et al. 2005). However, there was some divergence among participants in the extent to which they believed climate change was contributing and the degree to which it could accelerate the pace and broaden the spatial scale of ecosystem transformation. Although climate change attribution at a regional scale has been previously shown (Abatzoglou and Williams 2016), the disparity in the responses of participants is likely due to the challenges in isolating the large-scale influence of anthropogenic climate change at the more local, management-relevant scales at which respondents typically work.

Ecosystem and natural resource responses

Consistent with the expectations from the framework, results indicate strong consensus between interview and survey participants that ecosystem and natural resource responses to drought and wildfire are being experienced at larger scales than has been typical of the Colorado Plateau historically. Many respondents quickly identified the mismatch in scale between expansive ecosystem transformations and the relatively small management unit to which they were assigned as an immense challenge that was outside their control. The larger proportion of interview compared to survey respondents who noticed more rapid ecosystem responses can be explained by nearly half of interview participants experiencing large and high-severity fires that led to immediate ecosystem destruction. In contrast, drought effects can (but do not always) accumulate more slowly because of the resistance of many species and the different response times of ecosystem processes (Munson et al. 2021). Information systems that consider the scale and intensity of stressors in relation to these and other ecosystem characteristics can more accurately forecast the scale and severity of ecosystem responses to determine necessary management actions. Results from this study were consistent with frequent scale mismatches between ecological and social systems that can require institutional changes across hierarchical levels of decision-making (Cumming et al. 2006, Epstein et al. 2015). Overlap among multiple independent centers of decision-making, from local to national and global, through interaction and coordination, may provide one avenue for addressing this growing challenge (Ostrom et al. 1961, Heikkila 2018). The compound effects of drought, wildfire, climate change, and other stressors were well recognized by most respondents as both accelerating and broadening the effects to ecosystems.

Whereas ecosystem responses to stressors are currently observed to be skewed toward severe levels, future impacts are perceived to be pushed to further extremes. This shift in survey responses provides evidence that natural resource managers are anticipating the impacts of climate change. More severe impacts match the scientific consensus that climate change will accentuate the scale and magnitude at which impacts to ecosystems will occur (IPCC 2022, Bierbaum et al. 2013; Appendix 3). There is mounting evidence that many ecosystems are increasingly crossing abrupt, non-linear thresholds because of aridity and fire and may not recover (Davis et al. 2019, Berdugo et al. 2020). Although not all survey respondents had observed the same level of extremity of ecosystem transformations as interview respondents, results indicate that staff in the field of natural resources are well aware of the high level of degradation of natural resources that are forecasted to occur on the lands they manage. This recognition exists despite many respondents voicing concerns related to models and their uncertainty in forecasting climate change impacts to ecosystems.

Management strategies

The usefulness of management actions to recover from drought and wildfire was expressed by most survey respondents despite more than half expressing that they had low control over shaping the direction of natural resource responses. This restricted level of control despite the utility of an action could partially be explained by the perception that ecosystem responses occur at larger spatial scales than typical management jurisdictions and with more severity than can be addressed with limited resources. In support of the hypothesis from the conceptual framework, interview participants expressed that many management actions of their organization to drought and wildfire were not always aligned with current and future ecosystem responses. Reactive or misaligned management actions were more common because of the availability of resources only after a disturbance had occurred and demonstrate a tradeoff with more proactive approaches that could result in higher effectiveness but typically have fewer resources. The sentiment of interview participants was echoed by survey respondents who more frequently viewed the response of their agency or organization to drought and wildfire as “limited,” “reactive,” and “inadequate.” These responses collectively demonstrate a perception that agency culture has not widely promoted anticipatory adaptation strategies. The recent development of short- to near-term climate, wildfire, and ecosystem forecasts provide a direction forward when supported by decision-support tools and information that can help integrate anticipatory science into management actions (Bradford et al. 2018). Responses from both interview and survey participants demonstrated a wide recognition of the theory and concepts of climate and fire adaptation, which can be explained by a recent infusion of adaptation planning documents, trainings, workshops, tools, frameworks, and even menus developed for natural resource managers (Glick et al. 2011, Schuurman et al. 2022).

Despite conceptual advancements in the understanding of adaptation, this study shows a strong disconnect in the ability of natural resource managers to develop or implement actions deemed necessary to prepare for future enhancement of drought and wildfire, which is consistent with other studies (Archie et al. 2012, Kemp et al. 2015). Three-quarters of survey respondents reported they had a clear understanding of the concept of “adaptation” in a land management context, but most gave a definition that was not consistent with the definition provided by the IPCC (2022) or did not provide a broad definition of adjusting to future conditions with examples of specific actions. Furthermore, half of survey participants reported that actions planned for the future were the same as actions taken in the past. Interview respondents expressed much more skepticism that the term “adaptation” was understood and could be effectively implemented to prevent degradation of the condition of natural resources. This discrepancy in responses suggests that survey respondents who reported to understand adaptation might have felt constrained to respond as representatives of their agencies or organizations rather than provide an on-the-ground perspective that was drawn out with open-ended interview questions. A separation between answers may also reveal the complex interface in which natural resource managers work between interpreting general and broad-scale policies and implementing specific adaptation actions at a local scale.

Although there is often a mismatch in scale among ecosystem responses to stressors, adaptation science, policy, and management (Appendix 3), there can be effective approaches to make climate and wildfire adaptation actionable, including clear articulation of on-the-ground management priorities, collaboratively deciding on a strategy, regular and iterative communication, and tailoring products and associated guidance that meet management priorities (DeCrappeo et al. 2018). Many respondents indicated that they had participated in part or all these processes and shared diverse adaptation strategies that ranged from immediate actions to address short-term ecosystem stress (e.g., adjustment in livestock management) to further out planning to address long-term ecosystem transformation (e.g., planning assisted species migration). A majority of respondents described restoration actions as adaptation strategies, which indicates that adjusting to new climate and fire regimes may be more feasible once a disturbance has already occurred rather than preparing actions in currently intact ecosystems. This finding suggests that to move in the direction from “business as usual” management to anticipatory actions, the implementation of novel practices might initially take advantage of critical windows at the start of decision-making and ecological cycles to gain wider acceptance. Many respondents were discouraged by the low success rate of restoration, which has been previously indicated in a synthesis of restoration outcomes (Shackelford et al. 2021), and expressed their interest in more effective strategies. Fuel management was seen as one of the most proactive tools among managers discussing adaptation strategies to changing fire regimes, which is consistent with their growing use after decades of fire suppression (Copeland et al. 2017). Yet fire managers indicated that applying prescribed fires at a very large scale and high frequency to fundamentally lower fire risk to natural and human resources faced criticism from policymakers and society, which limited progress toward more effective adaptation.

Interview respondents also indicated the importance of social aspects of adaptation, including proactive leadership and communication, which has been integral to successful frameworks applied in the southwestern U.S. (Lemos and Moorehouse 2005, Cross et al. 2013). Given the large magnitude of future stressors, many natural resource management staff expressed strong interest for more cross-boundary and inter-agency collaborations to manage at large scales. This is consistent with a recent call for collective, coherent, and cohesive management actions that can lead to transformative adaptation (Shi and Moser 2021). Addressing the mismatch of scale between the large reach of stressors and the relatively small management units required many natural resource managers to seek out science and information on ecosystem vulnerability and adaptation strategies, work across agencies, share resources, and coordinate responses outside their management unit. Managers tasked with overseeing larger units with more diverse ecosystem responses may benefit from prioritizing actions on the basis of site vulnerability and probability of success.

Management barriers

Many of the management actions that were mismatched in scale and misaligned with the severity of ecosystem responses were attributable to barriers that prevented effective strategies. Financial resources were barriers for almost all respondents and stemmed from limited funding that was competitive to receive. The lack of financial resources was tied to staffing for many respondents, which collectively have been the primary barriers from similar interviews with natural resource managers (Schultz et al. 2019). Increasing capacity to implement actions, especially those that require larger treatment areas, and having well-paid permanent staff were solutions posed by many respondents. The creation of new specialist positions who have knowledge about strategies to address climate change and increasing wildfire intensity, an adaptation program that coordinates implementation, and monitoring staff to assess treatment effectiveness were novel suggestions by respondents to infuse agencies and organizations with expanded capacity. Scenario planning that considers how alternative management actions address discrepancies between the scale of stressors and ecosystem responses and synthesizing previous effectiveness monitoring at multiple spatial and temporal scales under different environmental conditions can help increase future preparedness.

Because of the perception that prior policies had not promoted actionable management strategies, many respondents sought solutions that increased agency efficiency and flexibility, created more effective leadership, and constructed guidance to support local adaptation strategies. This call for action to higher administrative levels to co-create solutions with local and regional resource managers is supported by prior theory of polycentricity in governance (Ostrom et al. 1961) and has been amplified by recent studies that synthesize approaches to enable sustained and transformative adaptation that align with natural resource responses (Shi and Moser 2021, IPCC 2022).

There was a disconnect between many survey respondents not having enough information and interview respondents having enough or more than enough information to respond to drought, wildfire, and climate change. Short answers from the surveys provided some insight into this apparent contradiction by explaining that improved quality of information and forward thinking, adaptation-focused data and information that were actionable were needed. In accordance with the conceptual framework, although there is growing scientific understanding of climate change and associated stressors at large scales, the demand for more targeted information that meets specific management needs at management-relevant scales is reaching a turning point (Knutti 2019). This study suggests more effort may help close a growing knowledge-action gap, which includes effective science communication, opportunities for adaptive management, and sharing of lessons learned (Tompkins and Adger 2004). Multiple respondents expressed a sense of optimism that the gap between science and management is decreasing, especially over the past decade because of more effective communication and opportunities for co-production.

Despite the insights gained by targeting surveys and interviews to staff representing diverse perspectives on natural resource management on the Colorado Plateau, relevant groups and perspectives were likely missed in the sampling approach. Tribes have a rich history of managing natural resources across the plateau but were not well represented in this study. Although the online survey was intended to reach a large representative population, the broad distribution of surveys to target groups likely resulted in a low response rate and a non-response bias, especially toward populations who are less likely to respond online (Sexton et al. 2011). Evaluation of whether management actions match the scale and align with the severity of ecosystem responses could be improved through a comparison of quantitative metrics of ecosystem condition and records of management actions derived from systematic monitoring.

Conclusions

Based on interviews and surveys, staff associated with natural resource management on the Colorado Plateau generally perceive that the lands they manage are being affected by drought and wildfire, and the speed and spatial scales of those impacts are growing. Many ecosystems and associated natural resources have already undergone high severity responses, with drought and wildfire often interacting to intensify ecosystem transformations in concert with other stressors. The conceptual framework developed in this study provides a way forward to monitor how ecosystem and natural resource responses are changing and to evaluate whether management actions are tracking the scale and severity of these responses. Consistent with the hypotheses from the framework, the scale and severity of these stressors are viewed to be growing under climate change, and reactive, “business as usual” management actions to cope with these impacts are perceived to be increasingly misaligned to address more severe future ecosystem responses. Although more forward-thinking climate adaptation concepts remain unclear, many proactive management actions, such as restoration and prescribed burning, are becoming better recognized and may increase alignment. Managers expressed a low amount of control in shaping ecosystem response to drought, wildfire, and climate change because of the mismatch between the growing scale of these stressors and the relatively small land unit they managed according to incremental changes in policy and available resources. Despite these challenges, managers conveyed that actions could be improved by innovative adaptation knowledge tailored to local management units, science-manager co-production of new projects at larger scales, and supportive agency leadership that promotes the development of tangible adaptation actions into agency workflows. These insights fill gaps in understanding how on-the-ground management actions can match the scale, align with the severity, and even become anticipatory of ecosystem responses, which may provide a pathway forward for other regions in the U.S. and beyond.

LITERATURE CITED

Abatzoglou, J. T., and A. P. Williams. 2016. Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(42):11770-11775. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607171113

Allen, C. D., A. K. Macalady, H. Chenchouni, D. Bachelet, N. McDowell, M. Vennetier, T. Kitzberger, A. Rigling, D. D. Breshears, E. T . Hogg, et al. 2010. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. Forest Ecology and Management 259(4):660-684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.001

Archie, K. M., L. Dilling, J. B. Milford, and F. C. Pampel. 2012. Climate change and western public lands: a survey of US federal land managers on the status of adaptation efforts. Ecology and Society 17(4):20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05187-170420

Berdugo, M., M. Delgado-Baquerizo, S. Soliveres, R. Hernández-Clemente, Y. Zhao, J. J. Gaitán, N. Gross, H. Saiz, V. Maire, A. Lehmann, et al. 2020. Global ecosystem thresholds driven by aridity. Science 367(6479):787-790. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay5958

Betancourt, J. L. 1990. Late quaternary biogeography of the Colorado Plateau. Pages 259-266 in J. L. Betancourt, T. R. Van Devender, and P. S. Martin, editors. Packrat middens: the last 40,000 years of biotic change. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, USA.

Bierbaum, R., J. B. Smith, A. Lee, M. Blair, L. Carter, F. S. Chapin III, P. Fleming, S. Ruffo, M. Stults, S. McNeeley, et al. 2013. A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in the United States: more than before, but less than needed. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 18:361-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9423-1

Bishop, T. B. B., S. Munson, R. A. Gill, J. Belnap, S. L. Petersen, and S. B. St. Clair. 2019. Spatiotemporal patterns of cheatgrass invasion in Colorado Plateau National Parks. Landscape Ecology 34:925-941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00817-8

Bradford, J. B., J. L. Betancourt, B. J. Butterfield, S. M. Munson, and T. E. Wood. 2018. Anticipatory natural resource science and management for a changing future. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16(5):295-303. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1806

Breshears, D. D., N. S. Cobb, P. M. Rich, K. P. Price, C. D. Allen, R. G. Balice, W. H. Romme, J. H. Kastens, M. L. Floyd, J. Belnap, et al. 2005. Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102(42):15144-15148. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0505734102

Cash, D. W., W. N. Adger, F. Berkes, P. Garden, L. Lebel, P. Olsson, L. Pritchard, and O. Young. 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society 11(2):8. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8

Cayan, D. R., T. Das, D. W. Pierce, T. P. Barnett, M. Tyree, and A. Gershunov. 2010. Future dryness in the southwest US and the hydrology of the early 21st century drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(50):21271-21276. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0912391107

Colloff, M. J., R. Gorddard, N. Abel, B. Locatelli, C. Wyborn, J. R. A. Butler, S. Lavorel, L. van Kerkhoff, S. Meharg, C. Múnera-Roldán, et al. 2021. Adapting transformation and transforming adaptation to climate change using a pathways approach. Environmental Science & Policy 124:163-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.06.014

Coop, J. D., S. A. Parks, C. S. Stevens-Rumann, S. D. Crausbay, P. E. Higuera, M. D. Hurteau, A. Tepley, E. Whitman, T. Assal, B. M. Collins, et al. 2020. Wildfire-driven forest conversion in western North American landscapes. BioScience 70(8):659-673. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa061

Copeland, S. M., J. B. Bradford, M. C. Duniway, and R. M. Schuster. 2017. Potential impacts of overlapping land‐use and climate in a sensitive dryland: a case study of the Colorado Plateau, USA. Ecosphere 8(5):e01823. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1823

Cross, M. S., P. D. McCarthy, G. Garfin, D. Gori, and C. A. F. Enquist. 2013. Accelerating adaptation of natural resource management to address climate change. Conservation Biology 27(1):4-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01954.x

Cumming, G. S., D. H. M. Cumming, and C. L. Redman. 2006. Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecology and Society 11(1):14. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art14

Davis, K. T., S. Z. Dobrowski, P. E. Higuera, Z. A. Holden, T. T. Veblen, M. T. Rother, S. A. Parks, A. Sala, and M. P. Maneta. 2019. Wildfires and climate change push low-elevation forests across a critical climate threshold for tree regeneration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(13):6193-6198. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1815107116

DeCrappeo, N. M., G. A. Bisbal, and A. M. Meadow. 2018. A path to actionable climate science: perspectives from the field. Environmental Management 61:181-187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0960-y

Dunn, C. J., C. D. O’Connor, J. Abrams, M. P. Thompson, D. E. Calkin, J. D. Johnston, R. Stratton, and J. Gilbertson-Day. 2020. Wildfire risk science facilitates adaptation of fire-prone social-ecological systems to the new fire reality. Environmental Research Letters 15(2):025001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6498

Epstein, G., J. Pittman, S. M. Alexander, S. Berdej, T. Dyck, U. Kreitmair, K. J. Rathwell, S. Villamayor-Tomas, J. Vogt, and D. Armitage. 2015. Institutional fit and the sustainability of social-ecological systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:34-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.005

Glick, P., B. A. Stein, N. A. Edelson, editors. 2011. Scanning the conservation horizon: a guide to climate change vulnerability assessment. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C., USA. https://www.nwf.org/vulnerabilityguide

Heikkila, T., S. Villamayor‐Tomas, and D. Garrick. 2018. Bringing polycentric systems into focus for environmental governance. Environmental Policy and Governance 28(4):207-211. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1809

Huang, J. L., P. G. Curran, J. Keeney, E. M. Poposki, and R. P. DeShon. 2012. Detecting and deterring insufficient effort responding to surveys. Journal of Business and Psychology 27:99-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9231-8

Hurteau, M. D., J. B. Bradford, P. Z. Fulé, A. H. Taylor, and K. L. Martin. 2014. Climate change, fire management, and ecological services in the southwestern US. Forest Ecology and Management 327:280-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.08.007

IBM Corp. 2022. SPSS Statistics, Version 25.0. Armonk, New York, USA. https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2022. Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. In Pörtner, H.O., D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama, editors. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844

Kates, R. W., W. R. Travis, and T. J. Wilbanks. 2012. Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(19):7156-7161. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115521109

Kemp, K. B., J. J. Blades, P. Z. Klos, T. E. Hall, J. E. Force, P. Morgan, and W. T. Tinkham. 2015. Managing for climate change on federal lands of the western United States: perceived usefulness of climate science, effectiveness of adaptation strategies, and barriers to implementation. Ecology and Society 20(2):17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07522-200217

Knutti, R. 2019. Closing the knowledge-action gap in climate change. One Earth 1(1):21-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.09.001

Lemos, M. C., and B. J. Morehouse. 2005. The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Global Environmental Change 15(1):57-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.09.004

Littell, J. S., D. L. Peterson, K. L. Riley, Y. Liu, and C. H. Luce. 2016. A review of the relationships between drought and forest fire in the United States. Global Change Biology 22(7):2353-2369. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13275

Margolis, E. Q., C. A. Woodhouse, and T. W. Swetnam. 2017. Drought, multi-seasonal climate, and wildfire in northern New Mexico. Climatic Change 142:433-446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1958-4

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. https://www.millenniumassessment.org

Munson, S. M., J. B. Bradford, and K. R. Hultine. 2021. An integrative ecological drought framework to span plant stress to ecosystem transformation. Ecosystems 24:739-754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-020-00555-y

Noy, C. 2008. Sampling knowledge: the hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 11(4):327-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401305

Ostrom, V., C. M. Tiebout, and R. Warren. 1961. The organization of government in metropolitan areas: a theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review 55(4):831-842. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952530

Otter.ai. 2023. Mountain View, California, USA. https://otter.ai

Preston, B. L., R. M. Westaway, and E. J. Yuen. 2011. Climate adaptation planning in practice: an evaluation of adaptation plans from three developed nations. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 16:407-438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-010-9270-x

QSR International. 2015. NVivo 11 Pro. Melbourne, Australia. https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home

Qualtrics. 2023. Provo, Utah, USA. https://www.qualtrics.com

Riley, K. L., J. T. Abatzoglou, I. C. Grenfell, A. E. Klene, and F. A. Heinsch. 2013. The relationship of large fire occurrence with drought and fire danger indices in the western USA, 1984-2008: the role of temporal scale. International Journal of Wildland Fire 22(7):894-909. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF12149

Saldaña, J. 2021. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Fourth edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Schultz, C. A., S. M. McCaffrey, and H. R. Huber-Stearns. 2019. Policy barriers and opportunities for prescribed fire application in the western United States. International Journal of Wildland Fire 28(11):874-884. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF19040

Scheffer, M., S. Carpenter, J. A. Foley, C. Folke, and B. Walker. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591-596. https://doi.org/10.1038/35098000

Schuurman, G. W., D. N. Cole, A. E. Cravens, S. Covington, S. D. Crausbay, C. H. Hoffman, D. J. Lawrence, D. R. Magness, J. M. Morton, E. A. Nelson, and R. O’Malley. 2022. Navigating ecological transformation: resist-accept-direct as a path to a new resource management paradigm. BioScience 72(1):16-29. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab067

Schwinning, S., J. Belnap, D. R. Bowling, and J. R. Ehleringer. 2008. Sensitivity of the Colorado Plateau to change: climate, ecosystems, and society. Ecology and Society 13(2):28. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art28

Sexton, N. R., H. M. Miller, and A. M. Dietsch. 2011. Appropriate uses and considerations for online surveying in human dimensions research. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 16(3):154-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2011.572142

Shackelford, N., G. B. Paterno, D. E. Winkler, T. E. Erickson, E. A. Leger, L. N. Svejcar, M. F. Breed, A. M. Faist, P. A. Harrison, M. F. Curran, Q. Guo, et al. 2021. Drivers of seedling establishment success in dryland restoration efforts. Nature Ecology and Evolution 5(9):1283-1290. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01510-3

Shi, L., and S. Moser. 2021. Transformative climate adaptation in the United States: trends and prospects. Science 372(6549):eabc8054. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc8054

Swetnam, T. W., and J. L. Betancourt.1998. Mesoscale disturbance and ecological response to decadal climatic variability in the American Southwest. Journal of Climate 11(12):3128-3147. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442

Swetnam, T. W., J. Farella, C. I. Roos, M. J. Liebmann, D. A. Falk, and C. D. Allen. 2016. Multiscale perspectives of fire, climate and humans in western North America and the Jemez Mountains, USA. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371(1696):20150168. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0168

Tompkins, E. L., and W. N. Adger. 2004. Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecology and Society 9(2):10. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10

Vaughn, A. 2024. Managing for ecosystem response to drought and wildfire on the Colorado Plateau. Dryad data release. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.s7h44j1d8

Westerling, A. L. 2016. Increasing western US forest wildfire activity: sensitivity to changes in the timing of spring. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371(1696):20150178. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0178

Williams, A. P., B. I. Cook, and J. E. Smerdon. 2022. Rapid intensification of the emerging southwestern North American megadrought in 2020-2021. Nature Climate Change 12(3):232-234. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01290-z

Zhang, F., J. A. Biederman, M. P. Dannenberg, D. Yan, S. C. Reed, and W. K. Smith. 2021. Five decades of observed daily precipitation reveal longer and more variable drought events across much of the western United States. Geophysical Research Letters 48(7):e2020GL092293. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL092293