There is not much benefit in producing science that just sits on a shelf. Effective science must extend beyond publication and address real-world needs argues Lynn Johnston, a Forest Fire Research Specialist with Natural Resources Canada and the Canadian Forest Service, in an editorial for the International Journal of Wildland Fire.
While reading journal articles in my roles as a wildland fire scientist and an Associate Editor of the International Journal of Wildland Fire, I find the papers that grab my interest and inspire deeper thinking are those that have a very strong connection between the science presented and the real-world benefits that can come from applying that science.
When studies articulate how results can be applied and what benefits may arise, readers are better able to understand the practical relevance and potential influence of the work. This is especially important in wildland fire research, where risk – defined as the combination of likelihood and impacts – is inherently tied to societal outcomes. Fire poses significant threats to human life, infrastructure and ecosystems, and effective decision-making relies on robust scientific support. Consequently, research that contributes to risk reduction carries particular importance.
Covering how results of a study have relevance to the real-world is a standard part of a research paper. But this discussion should aim to be substantive, going beyond a perfunctory statement relegated to the closing lines of the discussion section. Statements along the lines of ‘the results of this study can be used in fire management’ are common, but when added to a paper as a placeholder for a more genuine and thorough discussion, they lack sufficient specificity to be actionable. Concrete guidance could include things such as specifically how the results can support adaptive or proactive risk reduction, who might find the work useful, what kind of decisions can the science inform and what other information is needed.
Communicating science through publication
Communicating the value of new results, approaches, and scientific knowledge in risk research is crucial. Scientific publishing plays a critical role in this – it is central to broadly sharing knowledge and ultimately advancing innovation and discovery. It brings a level of quality control to the scientific record as papers are vetted through the peer review process. It ultimately promotes transparency and reproducibility in science. Publishing is also very much ingrained in measuring academic achievement, which motivates researchers to publish for improved success in obtaining research funding and for career progression.
However, publication alone is insufficient to ensure uptake by practitioners and decision-makers. Even in a hypothetical situation where scientists have produced ‘the best’ model, or ‘complete’ knowledge, not much benefit will be produced if the science just sits on a shelf. Effective science must extend beyond publication, with research designed to address real-world needs and integrated into broader processes of application and implementation. In this context, publication should be viewed as one component of a larger knowledge-to-action continuum rather than the endpoint.
Fire risk information overload
Fire risk has long been a priority topic across the scientific community. Scanning through International Journal of Wildland Fire issues since its inception in 1991 shows early inquiries into weather and fire activity, fuel moisture and fire behavior, development of fire danger systems, fire spread modeling, fire impacts – much of this work ultimately is fueled by the need for understanding and managing wildland fire risk.
Looking at International Journal of Wildland Fire publications over the years, there has been an increase in the number of publications that use the term ‘risk’, easily keeping pace with the rapid increase in overall number of papers being published. Moreover, there has been a notable change around the late 2000s to early 2010s where the number of papers that focus on fire risk as a major component of the paper, have ‘risk’ in the title of the article, or use the term ‘risk’ in the more specific natural hazard risk analysis context become much more prevalent. What was once a relatively niche topic is now a dominant and widespread focus within the journal and across the broader literature.
Annual number of publications (including article types: research article, review, or research note) in the International Journal of Wildland Fire from 1991 to 2025. The term ‘risk’ may be used in many ways, this includes all uses found in title, abstract, or main text. *Note: the year 1999 has no data as there were no issues that year.
The information overload is expected to continue in the future. At the same time, technology and capacity for intensely data-heavy and sophisticated assessments and detailed modeling are rapidly developing. Availability of more and more data will enable real-time and dynamic risk assessments. This could lead to a level of support for decision making and planning that would have been unimaginable at the beginning of many current careers in the field.
Since there is so much fire risk science and much more to come, it is worth asking how much of this work is ultimately applied and whether the abundance of publications effectively addresses the problems relevant to end users. How is all this work used and who is using it? The reality is that science uptake and implementation cannot possibly hope to keep up with the rapidly growing body of research outputs. This means it is even more essential to effectively communicate research applications and strive for improved uptake and implementation.
Considerations when publishing
When focusing on putting out scientific papers, there are considerations that can set up research for success in implementation, such as:
- Formally aligning research priorities with end-user priorities in research planning to strengthen relevance.
- Capitalizing on insight from personal and professional connections built with end-users, science communicators, and boundary organizations.
- Use of multiple ways of scoping and framing research topics to broaden potential impact.
- Inclusion of communication, engagement, implementation, and knowledge exchange activities in research proposals.
- Cover how scientific results can be used when drafting manuscripts in a specific and detailed way by including a thorough discussion, an example of implementation, a case study demonstrating use, or mentioning what next steps might lead to impact.
Going beyond the research paper
It is important to acknowledge that publishing science (and more broadly, the knowledge system of science) is just one tool available to share knowledge and reduce fire risk on the ground. To extend fire risk science beyond text on a page, various actions to promote the utility of science can be pulled from existing frameworks for knowledge exchange, best practices in implementation, and guides on technology transfer. One approach that can help close the research-practice gap is science communication using multiple strategies. Another key is to foster knowledge exchange opportunities. Significant benefits can be achieved through communication, collaboration, and reciprocal learning between researchers and end-users of science, especially when done early and often throughout the research process.
Looking to the lessons learned from past efforts in navigating published science to implementation in fire risk management can be very informative in guiding science implementation. There are many examples of implemented science – including various fire danger products, risk assessment systems, property hazard reduction programs, operational resource modeling, and air quality warnings. There’s quite a lot of work that focuses on what strategies were used and what challenges were faced. Just within this journal there are papers that review risk-based decision support tools in fire management (Miller and Ager 2013; Hyde et al. 2013), and papers that use expert surveys and interviews to identify barriers and facilitators in science implementation (Hunter 2016; Glenn et al. 2022; McFayden et al. 2022; Rapp et al. 2020; Varzeshi et al. 2026).
External to what has been done within the world of wildland fire, there is a huge amount of work in the broader field of science implementation and knowledge exchange. Research on dedicated, often interdisciplinary, knowledge exchange and translational science strategies can be applied in the fire risk science context. The same goes for work done in other fields such as medical or environmental science. Successful efforts to integrate science and society have shown us the benefits of co-production of tools and research, how crucial it is to have people functioning as knowledge brokers, the importance of boundary organizsations, trust as a systemic necessity in the collaborative process, and mutual learning within and between groups of players.
One thing to keep in mind is that individuals do not have to undertake all of these efforts simultaneously. Small steps toward better implementation of fire risk science absolutely counts. Creating long-term formalized knowledge exchange programs, building collaborative networks, and implementing large projects with continuous stakeholder engagement takes a whole lot of time and effort. All well-worth the effort, but easy wins might include using knowledge translation tools such as targeted evidence briefs of recent research, or even making connections with others interested in fire risk and having a casual conversation about the work.
Conclusion
The International Journal of Wildland Fire aims to publish impactful science that leads to benefit in the world of wildland fire. In support of that goal, I encourage the research community to clearly lay out potential benefits and meaningfully discuss the practical applications of a research project when writing papers.
That said, the impact of fire research can be dramatically bolstered through broader and more diverse forms of science communication and through knowledge exchange activities. Implementing research findings should be prioritized just as much as making the findings in the first place. Ultimately if the research isn’t fed into—and fed by—operations, planning needs, traditional knowledge and values, or local priorities, its potential impact remains limited. As researchers and practitioners reading this journal, there is a need to carefully consider how the science can lead to societal benefit. Particularly for topics related to fire risk, there is a certain moral duty associated with the application of science and its role in society. Thoughtfully applying the available abundance of new knowledge, tools, or approaches by distilling practical benefit from research papers has significant potential for reducing wildland fire risk.
Closing the gap between fire risk science and implementation should be prioritized and even incentivized. With the rapid rate of science being produced, the gap will widen unless there is conscious effort. Greater emphasis is needed on ensuring that published work not only advances knowledge, but also clearly supports its application in practice.
Risky Science – why connecting research to application matters
