It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Prescribed burning is used to reduce the occurrence, extent and severity of uncontrolled fires in many flammable landscapes. However, epidemiologic evidence of the human health impacts of landscape fire smoke emissions is shaping fire management practice through increasingly stringent environmental regulation and public health policy. An unresolved question, critical for sustainable fire management, concerns the comparative human health effects of smoke from wild and prescribed fires. Here we review current knowledge of the health effects of landscape fire emissions and consider the similarities and differences in smoke from wild and prescribed fires with respect to the typical combustion conditions and fuel properties, the quality and magnitude of air pollution emissions, and the potential for dispersion to large populations. We further examine the interactions between these considerations, and how they may shape the longer term smoke regimes to which populations are exposed. We identify numerous knowledge gaps and propose a conceptual framework that describes pathways to better understanding of the health trade-offs of prescribed and wildfire smoke regimes.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 School of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
2 School of Biological Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
3 British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
4 Menzies Research Institute, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia