Fire Warnings in Context: Operational Insights and the Case for Interdisciplinary Research Coordination

Fire Warnings in Context: Operational Insights and the Case for Interdisciplinary Research Coordination | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Fire Warnings in Context: Operational Insights and the Case for Interdisciplinary Research Coordination Stephanie Hoekstra, Emily M. Wells, Jamie Vickery, Benjamin J. Hatchett, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9431466/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract As wildfires increase in frequency, size, and intensity, effective tactical warning systems are critical for public safety to protect life and property. Fire Warnings—rarely used, text-based alerts issued by the National Weather Service (NWS) at the request of land and emergency managers— are intended to alert the public to imminent wildfire threats. Here, we present the first national assessment of the NWS Fire Warning product through two interdisciplinary studies involving mixed qualitative and quantitative methods: a week-long operational simulation with NWS forecasters and state land managers (Study 1), and nineteen virtual focus groups with eighty-five fire professionals nationwide (Study 2). Key findings reveal a familiarity gap: while immersive training leads to cautious optimism regarding the tool’s utility, participants across studies had concern over jurisdictional authority, alert fatigue, and potential redundancy with local systems. We argue that the successful implementation of Fire Warnings requires a standardized, yet adaptable protocol that shifts from a purely technical notification to a socio-technical framework prioritizing iterative interdisciplinary collaboration and localized transition strategies. These insights offer a roadmap for refining emergency alerts not only for wildfires but for all rapidly escalating, multisectoral cascading hazard events. Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences Earth and environmental sciences/Natural hazards Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 1. Introduction Rapidly spreading wildland fires demonstrating extreme fire behavior, especially those impacting the built environment, demand diverse interventions to mitigate risk to life and property [ 1 ]. These range from early warning, detection, and response efforts to long-term planning, adaptation, and mitigation strategies. While large, high severity wildfires have traditionally been seen as a concern in dryland areas such as the western and central U.S., Australia, and the Mediterranean, they are increasingly becoming a global issue [ 2 ]. Recent catastrophic fires in Chile, Korea, and Hawaii or during seasons when wildland fire hazard is historically at a minimal level ((e.g., Colorado’s Marshall Fire in late December 2021 and the Los Angeles, California Fire Disaster (Palisades and Eaton Fires) in January 2025)) provide mounting evidence that fire hazards are no longer confined to specific fire-prone regions but are occurring in areas and during times once considered low-to-no risk [ 3 ]. Further, the often-abrupt (i.e., minutes to hours) transition from a wildland fire to an urban conflagration produces numerous additional challenges to firefighter and public safety [4; 5], many compounded by complex fire environments juxtaposed with urban development [ 6 ]. As fire frequency, intensity, and size increase, early warning systems must evolve to address this complex human-environment problem amid an evolving coupled climate, ecosystem, and political landscape [ 2 , 7 , 8 ]. In the U.S., public messaging and early warnings primarily come from the National Weather Service (NWS) before ignition. The NWS issues Fire Weather Watches (FWW) when critical fire weather conditions (low relative humidity and windy conditions with dry fuels) are forecast at lead times of 24–72 hours and, if necessary, transitions to Red Flag Warnings (RFW) within 12–24 hours of the forecast event [ 9 ]. These early warnings, while intended for operational use, are critical for prompting protective actions that reduce loss of life, property, and response burden [10; 11]. Once a fire ignites, emergency managers may issue evacuation warnings and orders (e.g., Ready, Set, Go! Program) [ 12 ] based on proximity to critical assets, fire suppression challenges, and current and forecast fire spread [ 13 ]. While rarely used outside of a few areas in the central United States, the NWS can also issue Fire Warnings when a spreading structural fire or wildfire threatens a populated area [ 14 ]. Unlike RFWs and FWWs, which are issued ahead of forecast critical fire weather, text-based Fire Warnings (Fig. 1 ) are issued upon wildfire ignition, at the request of partnering land management agencies [ 15 ]. Fire Warnings are disseminated through the NWS’ Emergency Alert System (EAS) for the area covered by the polygon where the warning is requested (Fig. 2 ). Notably, the NWS does not currently have direct authority to issue Fire Warnings [ 15 ]. The Fire Warning occupies a narrow, high-stakes transition point in the disaster timeline (Fig. 3 ). While FWWs and RFWs (Phases 1 and 2) provide a broad, forecast-based window for situational awareness and to induce preparatory actions to reduce ignitions and mitigate new fire starts, the Fire Warning (Phase 3) shifts the focus from environmental risk to an active, tactical threat to life and property. Ideally, this warning serves as the final communicative bridge before a mandatory Evacuation Order (Phase 4) is triggered. However, the red arrow highlighted in the graphic underscores a primary challenge in modern wildfire response: the collapse of this linear progression. Because Fire Warnings are in some cases dependent on the detection of an ignition during extreme conditions, observed and/or expected rapid fire spread, and the subsequent request from local agencies, the lead time is often on the order of minutes (i.e., threats are imminent). This is particularly evident in "dire scenarios," where the rapid rate of fire spread outpaces the traditional notification process, effectively dropping the lead time for tactical warnings to zero [ 16 ]. In these fast-moving scenarios, the Fire Warning may be issued simultaneously with an Evacuation Order, or in extreme cases, follow it—a discrepancy that effectively merges the warning and action phases and necessitates a more integrated approach to the end-to-end warning system. Since 2006, at least 530 Fire Warnings have been issued in the U.S. (Fig. 4 ), though many of the most destructive fires were not preceded by one. Over half (54%) were issued by the Norman and Amarillo Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs) in the Southern Great Plains, where a new collaborative issuance model has emerged. This Tactical Integrated Warning Team (IWT) approach, co-developed between Norman and the Texas and Oklahoma state forestry agencies and adopted at neighboring Weather Forecast Offices such as Amarillo, involves real-time collaboration among NWS, fire, and emergency management experts [ 17 – 19 ]. Using an interdisciplinary and multisectoral approach, Tactical IWTs assess fuel conditions, resource availability, recent and ongoing fire activity, critical assets-at-risk, and weather forecasts before a fire event. Upon detecting new fires or increasing fire activity, Tactical IWTs coordinate if and where to issue Fire Warnings based on the most recent forecasts and when available, fire spread modeling. Though currently limited to the Southern Great Plains, this model demonstrates one emergent pathway for coordinated Fire Warning issuance. Here, we provide the first evaluation of Fire Warnings, focusing on their potential to improve risk communication and emergency response from the perspectives of meteorologists and fire managers. The novel evaluation methodology integrates two distinct mixed methods studies to triangulate findings and offer a more comprehensive understanding of the benefits, opportunities, and limitations of expanding Fire Warnings and issuing them through a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach. While this paper centers on the case of Fire Warnings, its broader contribution lies in demonstrating the value of integrating diverse research methods to evaluate complex hazard communication challenges. By triangulating findings from two studies with distinct methodologies, this research offers a more comprehensive understanding than either could provide alone. This approach not only deepens insights into Fire Warnings but also serves as a framework for examining other types of hazard warnings. As risks grow more interconnected and context-dependent across natural hazards [ 20 ], the ability to synthesize varied data sources, partner perspectives, and disciplinary approaches becomes increasingly essential for developing effective, actionable warning systems. 2. Methods To evaluate the utility and impact of Fire Warnings on wildfire response, two distinct studies were conducted, each with a unique methodological approach. The first study involved a structured, week-long hands-on evaluation conducted by the NOAA Fire Weather Testbed (FWT) in the Global Systems Laboratory (GSL) (Boulder, CO) [ 19 ]. The FWT’s evaluation assessed the end-to-end fire detection, notification, and warning workflow within the Tactical IWT framework during past wildfire scenarios as the events unfolded in real-time. The evaluation’s success hinged on the active participation of both NWS meteorologists and state fire managers working in teams to reflect an operational environment. The second study, conducted by NOAA’s Decision Support Research and Evaluation Branch, adopted a different methodology by conducting nineteen virtual focus groups nationwide. These discussions, held with fire professionals across each NWS region, focused on how participants interpret and use fire-related weather products, with a particular emphasis on Fire Warnings. Together, data gleaned from these predominantly qualitative approaches provide novel insights into the operational and perceptual factors influencing the adoption, utilization, and perception of Fire Warnings before and during wildfire events across the diverse landscapes and jurisdictions of the U.S. 2.1. Study 1: Fire Weather Testbed (FWT) Evaluation The FWT designed, facilitated, and collected data during a structured, week-long evaluation from 10–14 June 2024 in Boulder, CO. The FWT evaluated four fire-related tools and processes including satellite-based fire detections, detection notification tools, the process of performing a Tactical IWT before and during an ignition, and the process of identifying an area to issue a Fire Warning, ultimately issuing one (or several) [ 19 ]. Throughout, Fire Warnings were a central focus and connecting theme; all tools and processes informed whether to issue Fire Warnings. Participants received training on each tool and process from subject matter experts and then engaged in hands-on exercises, discussions, and simulated wildfire scenarios to evaluate these products throughout the week. Participants included NWS meteorologists ( n = 4 ) and state fire management personnel ( n = 5 ) from California, Florida, Kansas, and North Carolina who were paired based on their geographic regions to reflect real-world NWS meteorologist and land manager coordination during wildfire events. Throughout the week, participants attended training presentations and product demonstrations on hot spot detection, issuing fire warnings using an integrated team approach, and hot spot alert notifications, with experienced users explaining the purpose, functionality, and applications of Fire Warnings. Following training and demonstrations, participants engaged in seven displaced real-time simulations of past wildfire events occurring between 2020 and 2024 across a variety of fuelscapes [ 19 ]. Teams assessed fire ignition locations and subsequent fire behavior and spread to make real-time decisions about whether to issue Fire Warnings using a Tactical Integrated Warning Team (IWT) model—a collaboration framework involving joint information exchange between meteorologists and fire management personnel. This model reflects practices used in the Southern Great Plains, where meteorology, fire, and emergency management experts often coordinate in real-time to issue Fire Warnings informed by shared situational awareness. Importantly, this IWT-based approach was specific to Study 1 and allowed participants to experience how collaborative decision-making might improve the targeting and communication of Fire Warnings. To evaluate the effectiveness and usability of Fire Warnings, the study employed multiple methods, including surveys, focus groups, and daily discussions. Pre- and post-evaluation surveys captured shifts in participant perspectives, while daily questionnaires gathered immediate reactions to each exercise. Roundtable discussions provided informal feedback, and recorded focus groups at the end of the evaluation allowed for in-depth exploration of product utility and implementation considerations. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic coding [ 21 ], while quantitative survey results were summarized statistically. 2.2. Study 2: Decision Support Research and Evaluation Branch (DSRE) Study In contrast, the second study took a different approach, conducted by a researcher in NOAA’s DSRE Branch at GSL. Rather than an immersive evaluation, this study consisted of a series of 19 recorded virtual focus groups with fire partners, each lasting approximately 1.5 hours. Discussions examined how they interpret and use NWS fire products, such as FWWs and RFWs, with the final thirty minutes dedicated to Fire Warnings. Unlike Study 1, which involved immersive simulations and collaborative real-time decision-making using the IWT model, Study 2 engaged a broader, nationwide sample of 85 participants through virtual focus groups. Recruited via targeted outreach to local WFOs, participants represented 16 WFOs across all six NWS regions, ensuring diverse geographic perspectives. However, these discussions did not include structured training or exposure to the IWT approach, nor did they prompt joint decision-making. Instead, participants shared their perceptions and interpretations of Fire Warnings in a discussion-based format. To enhance relevance, conversations were framed around key wildfire response timeframes—from initial threat awareness to active fire conditions—and used mock fire weather products tailored to each participant’s region. Focus groups followed a semi-structured format, allowing for flexibility in discussion while maintaining consistency across sessions. To enhance validity, participants reviewed summaries of their discussions to confirm accuracy [ 22 ]. Focus group recordings were professionally transcribed and analyzed using thematic coding to identify patterns in decision-making [ 21 ]. An iterative coding process refined emerging themes, and intercoder reliability was assessed by an independent co-coder, reinforcing the consistency and credibility of findings. 2.3. Study Comparison and Significance Although both studies examined Fire Warnings and included similar discussion topics—such as how Fire Warnings might influence decision-making, potential barriers to adoption, and whether they fill a gap in existing wildfire response processes—their methodologies were vastly different (Table 1 ). Study 1 offered depth through immersive simulation and collaborative issuance under a mock Tactical IWT model, while Study 2 offered breadth through a wide geographic sample of professionals responding based on their prior knowledge and experience as opposed to training from experienced product users. Additionally, Study 1 spanned a full week, while the focus groups in Study 2 lasted only 1.5 hours each. The differing study methodologies offer a dynamic and comprehensive understanding of operational perspectives of Fire Warnings, highlighting both the operational insights gained through immersive training and simulated real-time decision-making, as well as the broader attitudes and perceptions captured from a diverse national sample. However, each approach also introduces potential biases—whether through prolonged exposure to product demonstrations in the FWT study or the lack of direct training and exposure in the DSRE focus groups. These methodological implications and their influence on the findings are further explored in the results section. Table 1 Comparative Summary of Methodological Approaches for Study 1 (FWT Evaluation) and Study 2 (DSRE Focus Groups). This table highlights the distinctions between the immersive, simulation-based environment of the Fire Weather Testbed and the broad, perception-based virtual focus groups conducted nationwide. Feature Study 1: Fire Weather Testbed Evaluation Study 2: DSRE Focus Groups Primary Goal Assess end-to-end workflow & real-time decision-making Capture nationwide perceptions & interpretation of products Methodology Immersive, hands-on simulations (tactical IWT model) Semi-structured virtual focus groups Duration One week 1.5 hours per session Scale & Breadth 4 NWS meteorologists; 5 state land managers 85 participants (nationwide sample) Geography Specific regions (CA, FL, KS, NC) Nationwide (All 6 NWS regions; 16 WFOs) Setting In-person (Boulder, CO); operational environment Virtual; discussion-based Training Structured training & product demonstrations included No formal training; based on short description and prior knowledge/experience Key Tools Used Satellite detections, notification tools, IWT framework Mock fire weather products tailored to regions 3. Results & Discussion Study 1, the weeklong, in-person FWT evaluation, involved both NWS meteorologist and fire management participants (total n = 9), and findings highlight each participant group’s perspectives and concerns regarding Fire Warnings [ 19 ]. Study 2, the Decision Support Research and Evaluation Branch (DSRE) study, included only fire management participants (total n = 85), and thus, findings are presented collectively for all participants. 3.1. Study 1: Fire Weather Testbed (FWT) Evaluation Findings Having worked in mock IWT teams throughout Study 1, NWS meteorologists viewed Fire Warnings as a useful tool for public risk communication, complementing other alert systems to enhance public awareness and safety [ 19 ]. They also saw potential for Fire Warnings to assist operational teams by conveying critical weather information affecting firefighter safety and situational awareness. As one participant put it, Fire Warnings would be a valuable "tool in the toolbox" for protecting lives and property. However, meteorologists raised concerns about determining the appropriate warning boundaries, particularly in relation to "buffer zones." Notably, meteorologists tended to buffer larger warning areas for weather-related events, while fire managers preferred boundaries that more precisely reflected fire activity. The question of who holds final authority for issuing Fire Warnings was also a concern for both groups, particularly for fires spanning multiple jurisdictions (e.g., federal, state, and local). Fire managers echoed the meteorologists’ support of Fire Warnings as a public communication tool but identified several barriers to implementation. These included confusion with other NWS products (e.g., RFWs, evacuation orders), uncertainties around public risk perception, and behavioral responses such as alert fatigue or preemptive evacuations leading to traffic congestion. Coordination was another concern, given that issuing authority varies by state, complicating consistent implementation. A major issue was the NWS’s current need to seek secondary approval and the inability to disseminate Fire Warnings via the Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) [ 23 ]. Many fire managers argued that fires, like flash floods, are weather-driven and should be treated similarly. Some supported granting NWS direct authority to issue Fire Warnings—an idea that differed from meteorologists’ preference to consult fire managers for fire behavior expertise before issuance. This coordination requirement was widely seen as a bureaucratic barrier to timely action. Additionally, several fire managers suggested reclassifying Fire Warnings as weather-related products to enable rapid, widespread dissemination via WEA alerts. As one participant asked, “How is a flash flood a weather emergency and a fire is not?” - highlighting the perceived inconsistency in hazard classification and the potential benefits of integrating Fire Warnings into existing weather alert systems. 3.2. Study 2: Decision Support Research and Evaluation (DSRE) Study Findings Study 2 explored perspectives of a wide range of fire professionals across 16 NWS County Warning Areas (CWAs). While some participants saw potential value in Fire Warnings—particularly in areas with frequent and intense fire events or where existing fire alerts may be insufficient—this view was not universally shared. Supporters emphasized that effectiveness would depend on conditions like strong public education and resolving logistical challenges. The majority of participants raised significant concerns about implementation, especially regarding existing systems and public perception. The most frequently mentioned concern was the existence of other alert systems already in place. Many fire managers expressed that localized programs, such as Ready Set Go!, were already effective in alerting the public and that the introduction of Fire Warnings might create redundancy and confusion. As an Emergency Manager in Northern California noted, “...fire warning[s] would kind of … muddy the waters a little bit with what we have already, which has been working really great over the last four years…” These localized systems were seen as more attuned to regional needs and better aligned with local risk communication practices. Some participants also expressed concerns about public confusion, particularly if Fire Warnings were issued too frequently or were not carefully differentiated from other fire-related alerts like evacuation orders or RFWs. Alert fatigue was another concern, with some fearing that too many notifications could desensitize the public and weaken the impact of truly urgent messages. Timing of Fire Warning issuance was another major issue raised, which in part may be due to a lack of familiarity with the speed at which Fire Warnings can be requested and implemented in a coordinated manner. Because fires can spread rapidly, participants highlighted concerns that evacuation orders may be issued before Fire Warnings are even considered, potentially rendering the Fire Warning unnecessary or irrelevant. They felt that this potential timing mismatch could lead to a lack of urgency around Fire Warnings, reducing their effectiveness in mobilizing response efforts and protective actions. Concerns about authority and responsibility also surfaced as a significant barrier to the widespread adoption of Fire Warnings. Participants questioned who would control issuance, especially given the complex jurisdictional landscape. Some feared power struggles over who “owns” the decision, with considerable variability in procedures depending on the region. This lack of clarity was viewed as a major barrier to consistent adoption. Moreover, the added resources required to issue Fire Warnings were noted as a concern. Fire managers noted that requesting warnings would require time, coordination, and administrative support—resources already stretched during active incidents. As a Deputy Fire Chief in Kansas explained, “I know when we get busy in the heat of a fire, I'm not thinking about calling the Weather [Service] for a warning.” There was also skepticism about whether Fire Warnings would be needed in all areas. Several participants emphasized that some regions may not face the same level of wildfire risk or may already have sufficient localized warning systems in place, making the Fire Warning system unnecessary or redundant in certain contexts. 3.3. Interpreting the Similarities and Differences: Implications for Fire Warnings The two studies revealed similarities and differences regarding the potential application of Fire Warnings, shedding light on benefits and concerns that were largely consistent across the groups. A central benefit shared in both studies was the recognition of Fire Warnings as a potentially valuable tool for public risk communication, particularly in enhancing public awareness and safety during wildfire events, although this was emphasized far more in Study 1. However, concerns also emerged in both studies regarding the potential for public confusion and redundancy. Participants across both studies expressed worry about how Fire Warnings might be misinterpreted or confused with other fire-related alerts, such as RFWs or evacuation orders. Additionally, participants were concerned about alert fatigue, particularly if Fire Warnings were issued too frequently or without clear differentiation from other alerts. The participants involved in these studies revealed differing degrees of concern and skepticism in implementing and issuing Fire Warnings. Study 2 revealed a far greater range of concerns regarding Fire Warning implementation. Study 2 participants raised issues related to existing localized alert systems, jurisdictional confusion, and the need for additional resources, indicating a greater skepticism and wariness about the efficacy and practicality of Fire Warnings. In contrast, Study 1 participants expressed more cautious optimism by the end of the evaluation. Although they identified barriers such as bureaucratic challenges and coordination issues, they generally recognized the potential of Fire Warnings and converged on a more positive outlook. Notably, methodological differences between studies may have influenced resulting variation in participant perceptions of Fire Warnings. Study 1 participants received active, multi-day training and educational exposure led by early adopters of Fire Warnings. This direct engagement and training likely created a more informed and open perspective toward the system's possibilities. Additionally, participants expressed increasingly positive perceptions of Fire Warning as the week-long FWT evaluation progressed, further supporting the idea that training and exposure to the practical uses and successes of Fire Warnings can play a crucial role in shaping attitudes [ 19 ]. However, Study 1’s reliance on the experiences and training provided by early adopters of Fire Warnings may limit the generalizability of the findings. Most fire managers nationwide have not had the opportunity for the level of direct training that Study 1 participants received. The contrast in findings between the studies may, in part, reflect this disparity in training—participants in Study 2, with limited exposure, expressed much more skepticism towards Fire Warnings. This suggests that perceived Fire Warning effectiveness may depend significantly on the training and educational outreach provided to operational end-users. Relative to Study 2, Study 1 findings demonstrate that more widespread and consistent exposure to Fire Warnings can reduce concerns and increase acceptance across a broader range of fire managers. 3.4. Recommendations With growing human and asset exposure to increasingly frequent and severe natural hazards [ 1 ], we suggest that both our general insights and specific recommendations can inform the development of a new generation of risk communication frameworks. These frameworks will need to support increasingly interdisciplinary and multisectoral communication, coordination, and collaboration. This approach finds a compelling precedent in the development and ongoing evolution of the U.S. West Coast's ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning (EEW) system. From its very inception, ShakeAlert was intentionally designed as a "socio-technical system," where the integration of social science expertise alongside traditional geophysical sciences was paramount [24; 25]. Social scientists were deeply embedded in the product development and deployment phases, tasked with understanding diverse user needs, informing equitable communication strategies, and continuously evaluating the system's societal benefit and how information is perceived and acted upon [ 26 ]. This proactive, interdisciplinary engagement from the start has been crucial to ShakeAlert's effectiveness, demonstrating that successful warning systems are not solely about accurate scientific data, but fundamentally about how that information integrates with human behavior and operational realities. For the Fire Warning process, a key recommendation that emerged from both studies is the importance of comprehensive training for all practitioners involved. Both studies highlighted gaps in knowledge and concerns about the expertise of various groups in utilizing Fire Warnings. To address this, we recommend implementing robust Fire Warning training for NWS personnel, land management agencies, emergency management agencies, and other fire partners. This training should focus not only on the technical aspects of issuing Fire Warnings but also on the collaborative processes required for their successful implementation [ 27 ]. Beyond strengthening interagency relationships and optimizing resources, such training could streamline the warning process and facilitate issuing Fire Warnings within approximately 10 minutes of a request [ 17 ]. Additionally, public education campaigns should be curated to increase awareness and understanding of recommended protective actions during Fire Warnings and clarify the differences between NWS products. Educational materials should stress how Fire Warnings integrate with emergency management evacuation guidance to ensure consistent messaging during high-stress situations when multiple products are being rapidly communicated. Collaborative infographics (e.g., Fig. 3 ) using locally relevant terminology should be shared collaboratively by the NWS and other fire management partners via social media, NWS websites, and broadcast meteorologists ahead of fire season and potential fire weather. Another crucial recommendation is to prioritize local needs when considering the implementation of Fire Warnings. While the success of Fire Warnings in places like Oklahoma and Texas provides valuable insights [ 17 ], this issuance approach may not be feasible or appropriate in other states/regions. The implementation of Fire Warnings will likely vary across regions based on existing alert systems, wildfire risk levels (i.e., the exposure and vulnerability of critical assets), and other local factors regarding the fire environment and fire management. In some areas, participants in Study 2 felt that Fire Warnings may not be necessary due to well-established localized systems or lower wildfire threats. Therefore, while Fire Warnings should aim for consistency in standards and in the information provided, their application must be flexible to adapt to the unique needs of each community. This approach ensures that Fire Warnings serve their purpose without creating unnecessary redundancy or confusion. Lastly, we recommend additional, intentional research, particularly on the topic of public perceptions and potential avenues for the implementation of Fire Warnings. While existing research has modeled evacuation decision-making and the timing of physical departure during wildfires [ 28 ], those studies primarily focus on the broader behavioral response to evacuation orders and warnings as a general category. There remains a critical need for research focused specifically on the Fire Warning as a distinct, NWS-disseminated tactical product. Alert fatigue and confusion concerns highlighted in both of our studies reveal a gap in understanding how the public differentiates these rare, text-based alerts from more common weather products or local evacuation orders. Future research should investigate how the specific phrasing, source authority, and delivery of Fire Warnings influence public perception and motivate protective behavior before a mandatory evacuation is even triggered. Future research should also focus on engaging law enforcement, as participants from both studies described the key role of law enforcement in evacuation orders and coordination during wildfire events. Their involvement in the decision-making process could help clarify roles and responsibilities and streamline the warning and evacuation processes. 4. Conclusions These two studies offer a unique, multidimensional look into the emerging role of Fire Warnings in wildfire risk communication and coordination. While the concept of a Fire Warning resonates with many fire professionals as a potentially valuable public safety tool, its operationalization is anything but straightforward. Both studies illustrate that Fire Warnings cannot—and should not—be implemented as a one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, successful integration will require strategic, locally-tailored approaches that reflect diverse risk landscapes, institutional capacities, education campaigns, continuous public and interagency engagement, and alert infrastructures. Depending on the structure of a given emergency management system, this may require coordination across multiple levels of government. A major takeaway is the value of integrating diverse research methodologies, designs, and perspectives to evaluate wildfire communication tools like Fire Warnings. By combining simulations and discussions, qualitative and quantitative methods, different scales, and varied end user viewpoints, these studies provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding than any single approach could offer. Methodological triangulation not only deepens insight into Fire Warnings’ potential benefits and challenges but also demonstrates the value of blending diverse approaches to capture complex realities of current problems that require an interdisciplinary lens. While integrating physical and social sciences is crucial—linking technical hazard knowledge with human behavior and operational insight—the broader lesson lies in embracing methodological diversity and engaging end users throughout. This reveals how products function in practice, including social, behavioral, and logistical factors that affect effectiveness. The development of systems like ShakeAlert illustrates how a socio-technical, interdisciplinary approach—grounded in both rigorous science and real-world engagement—can produce more actionable and trusted guidance for public safety. Such examples underscore the value of continuing to build integrative frameworks that can evolve with increasingly widespread, severe, and complex threats. As wildfire risks increase in complexity with changing environmental conditions and expanding wildland-urban interface development [7; 29], it is essential to continue leveraging interdisciplinary and multi-method research frameworks prior to full implementation. This paper exemplifies how combining complementary research designs and end user perspectives can uncover insights to support more informed, adaptable, and effective warning systems. Ultimately, advancing hazard communication depends not just on better science, but on thoughtful integration of varied research methods and iterative real-world input, producing actionable guidance that supports agencies, policymakers, and communities in enhancing public safety. Declarations CRediT authorship contribution statement: Conceptualization: SH, EW, JV, BJH, ZT Methodology: SH, EW, JV, ZT Formal analysis: SH, EW, JV Visualization: SH, BJH Writing – original draft: SH, BJH Writing – review & editing: SH, EW, JV, BJH, ZT Declaration of competing interest: All authors declare no financial or non-financial competing interests. Acknowledgments: We sincerely thank the entire laboratory team for their support and collaboration, with special appreciation to the FWT Evaluation Meteorologist for his contributions to the FWT Evaluation. We also extend our gratitude to all the participants from both studies, as well as subject matter experts and product developers whose insights and perspectives were essential to this research. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author and do not reflect the views of NOAA or the U.S. Department of Commerce. This work was supported by a NOAA cooperative agreement for the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (NA24OARX432C0007), the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) Provision 5, Fire 6 (NA23OAR40504161), the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (NA23OAR4050133D), and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law IIJA-Fire 1: Fire Weather Testbed Activities (NA23OAR4050418I). The funders played no role in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or the writing of this manuscript. Data Availability: In alignment with open science principles, methods and data will be made available to bona fide researchers upon reasonable request, excluding any personally identifiable information (PII). Furthermore, focus group guides from both studies have been uploaded to DesignSafe, a long-term data repository that allows for free access to researchers [30; 31]. References Bowman, D. et al. Vegetation fires in the Anthropocene. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 500–515 (2020). Bowman, D. M. J. S. et al. Fire in the Earth system. Science 324, 481–484 (2009). Mahood, A. L. et al. Seasonality of wildfire risk: A well-defined but changing signal. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 119, e2111875119 (2022). Syphard, A. D., Brennan, T. J. & Keeley, J. E. The importance of building construction materials relative to other factors affecting structure survival during wildfire. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 21, 140–147 (2017). Calkin, D. E., Cohen, J. D., M. A. Finney, M. P. & Thompson, M. P. How risk management can prevent future wildfire disasters in the wildland-urban interface. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 746–751 (2014). Mockrin, M. H. et al. Where wildfire risk meets land use planning: A review of policy and governance challenges in the United States. Land Use Policy 114, 105957 (2022). Burton, C. et al. Global burned area increasingly explained by climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 14, 1–7 (2024). McCaffrey, S. M. & Olsen, C. S. Research perspectives on the public and fire management: A synthesis of current social science on eight essential questions. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-104 (2012). National Weather Service. National Weather Service Instruction 10–401: Fire Weather Services Product Specification (National Weather Service, Silver Spring, MD, 2017). Mileti, D. S. & Sorensen, J. H. Communication of emergency public warnings: A social science perspective and state-of-the-art assessment (Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., 1990). Cova, T. J., Drews, F. A., Siebeneck, L. K. & Musters, A. Protective actions in wildfires: Evacuate or shelter-in-place? Nat. Hazards Rev. 10, 151–162 (2009). International Association of Fire Chiefs. Ready, Set, Go! Program. https://www.wildlandfireRSG.org (2025). Maranghides, A. & Link, E. D. WUI fire evacuation and sheltering considerations: Assessment, planning, and execution (ESCAPE). NIST Tech. Note 2262r1 https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.2262r1 (2025). National Weather Service. Non-Weather Emergency Products Specification (Instruction 10–518). NOAA https://www.weather.gov/media/directives/010_pdfs/pd01005018curr.pdf (2021). National Weather Service. Fire Weather Services Product Specification (Instruction 10–401). NOAA https://www.weather.gov/media/directives/010_pdfs/pd01004001curr.pdf (2024). Cova, T. J., Li, D., Siebeneck, L. K. & Drews, F. A. Toward Simulating Dire Wildfire Scenarios. Nat. Hazards Rev. 22, 04021019 (2021). Lindley, T. T. et al. Retrospective demonstrations of an integrated team approach to fire warnings for western United States wildfire disasters. J. Oper. Meteorol. 12, 54–71 (2024). Wells, E. M. et al. NOAA Fire Weather Testbed launches first in-person evaluation. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-24-0204.1 (2025). NOAA Fire Weather Testbed. Fire Weather Testbed Evaluations #002–004: An end-to-end evaluation of NOAA’s emerging wildland fire detection and warning capabilities. NOAA Tech. Memo. OAR GSL-071 https://doi.org/10.25923/4pqf-7g49 (2025). Uccellini, L. W. & Ten Hoeve, J. E. Evolving the National Weather Service to build a weather-ready nation: Connecting observations, forecasts, and warnings to decision-makers through impact-based decision support services. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 100, 1923–1942 (2019). Braun, V. & Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101 (2006). Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. Naturalistic inquiry (Sage, 1985). National Weather Service. Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA). https://www.weather.gov/riw/WEA_Info (2025). Tan, M. L. et al. Understanding the social aspects of earthquake early warning: A literature review. Front. Commun. 7, 939242 (2022). McBride, S. K. et al. Developing post-alert messaging for ShakeAlert, the earthquake early warning system for the West Coast of the United States of America. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 49, 101735 (2020). Jenkins, M. R., McBride, S. K., Morgoch, M. & Smith, H. Considerations for creating equitable and inclusive communication campaigns associated with ShakeAlert, the earthquake early warning system for the West Coast of the USA. Disaster Prev. Manag. 31, 79–91 (2022). Sumy, D. F. et al. Education Initiatives to Support Earthquake Early Warning: A Retrospective and a Roadmap. Seismol. Res. Lett. 93, 3498–3513 (2022). Zhao, X. et al. Estimating wildfire evacuation decision and departure timing using large-scale GPS data. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 107, 103277 (2022). Radeloff, V. C. et al. Rising wildfire risk to houses in the United States, especially in grasslands and shrublands. Science 382, 702–707 (2023). Hoekstra, S. Focus group/survey instruments. Evaluating National Weather Service fire weather products within a fire partner and public decision-making context. DesignSafe-CI https://doi.org/10.17603/ds2-89h2-de64 (2025). Wells, E. et al. An end-to-end evaluation of NOAA's emerging wildland fire detection and warning capabilities. DesignSafe-CI https://doi.org/10.17603/ds2-dkt2-2f95 (2025). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 29 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 28 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 23 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 19 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Apr, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 17 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 17 Apr, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 17 Apr, 2026 First submitted to journal 15 Apr, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9431466","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":628330485,"identity":"b4efc6f5-729b-4188-83f4-12d2ca515899","order_by":0,"name":"Stephanie Hoekstra","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Colorado State University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Stephanie","middleName":"","lastName":"Hoekstra","suffix":""},{"id":628330486,"identity":"8c8346cb-930a-4d7f-8086-8230c735fb3c","order_by":1,"name":"Emily M. Wells","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Colorado State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Emily","middleName":"M.","lastName":"Wells","suffix":""},{"id":628330487,"identity":"52c064f0-5d83-486a-b405-66d29741ce33","order_by":2,"name":"Jamie Vickery","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Global Systems Laboratory","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jamie","middleName":"","lastName":"Vickery","suffix":""},{"id":628330488,"identity":"2e5ddf71-6627-4841-9a02-552f186b3470","order_by":3,"name":"Benjamin J. Hatchett","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Colorado State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Benjamin","middleName":"J.","lastName":"Hatchett","suffix":""},{"id":628330491,"identity":"969fbf38-707e-46c7-9523-20d04c320fb8","order_by":4,"name":"Zach Tolby","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Global Systems Laboratory","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zach","middleName":"","lastName":"Tolby","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-15 23:38:26","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9431466/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9431466/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":107838657,"identity":"fc27cc19-150f-46f3-ad49-16f91293edec","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-26 17:12:12","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":321009,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eExample Fire Warning issued at 1522 Mountain Daylight Time by the NWS Albuquerque at the request of the Lincoln County Office of Emergency Services for the 2024 South Fork Fire near Ruidoso, New Mexico.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9431466/v1/e41d24808c5460ed7d0cc398.png"},{"id":107870190,"identity":"65334d39-565f-4e78-9e2d-6434e49019d1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-27 07:39:05","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1499793,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFire Warning polygons are drawn by the NWS similar to other watch and warning polygons (e.g., severe thunderstorm warning, flash flood watch). The first of two Fire Warnings (shown as a magenta polygon) during the 2024 South Fork Fire was issued by the NWS at the request of the Lincoln County Office of Emergency Services at 1522 Mountain Daylight Time on 17 June 2024. By 18 June 2024, the fire burned through the area covered by this polygon during a strong wind, fuel, and topography-driven run to the northeast. Satellite-based fire detections show the fire progression of the South Fork and Salt Fires.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9431466/v1/d009c49af3b6759f417954d3.png"},{"id":107838659,"identity":"5fc677f3-2c52-43ea-817f-47dfcb2d8d3e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-26 17:12:12","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":759283,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe standard sequence of alerts, begins with a Fire Weather Watch (Phase 1), escalates to a Red Flag Warning (Phase 2), and if new ignitions are detected with rapid growth or existing fires demonstrate uncontrollable spread in proximity to critical assets, a specific Fire Warning (Phase 3), and finally an Evacuation Order (Phase 4) may be issued. However, rapidly escalating fires can force a Fire Warning to occur simultaneously with, or even after, an Evacuation Order has been issued.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9431466/v1/1e9cc3007d9b3ba5aa3744bb.png"},{"id":107870580,"identity":"a8b4995d-91ba-4cb3-909c-1379742e9f98","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-27 07:39:57","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":380434,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTotal National Weather Service Fire Warning products issued between 13 January 2006 and 31 December 2025 per Weather Forecast Office. Data provided by the Iowa Environmental Mesonet of Iowa State University’s unofficial archive (https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/; accessed 3 January 2026).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9431466/v1/34740e726b09a4bf2054e7b7.png"},{"id":107872078,"identity":"2641f0f0-527c-4e21-8c71-87717d683b9a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-27 07:55:18","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3109442,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9431466/v1/cfdc56fb-082b-409a-b574-20a55518e7f1.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Fire Warnings in Context: Operational Insights and the Case for Interdisciplinary Research Coordination","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eRapidly spreading wildland fires demonstrating extreme fire behavior, especially those impacting the built environment, demand diverse interventions to mitigate risk to life and property [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. These range from early warning, detection, and response efforts to long-term planning, adaptation, and mitigation strategies. While large, high severity wildfires have traditionally been seen as a concern in dryland areas such as the western and central U.S., Australia, and the Mediterranean, they are increasingly becoming a global issue [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Recent catastrophic fires in Chile, Korea, and Hawaii or during seasons when wildland fire hazard is historically at a minimal level ((e.g., Colorado\u0026rsquo;s Marshall Fire in late December 2021 and the Los Angeles, California Fire Disaster (Palisades and Eaton Fires) in January 2025)) provide mounting evidence that fire hazards are no longer confined to specific fire-prone regions but are occurring in areas and during times once considered low-to-no risk [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. Further, the often-abrupt (i.e., minutes to hours) transition from a wildland fire to an urban conflagration produces numerous additional challenges to firefighter and public safety [4; 5], many compounded by complex fire environments juxtaposed with urban development [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. As fire frequency, intensity, and size increase, early warning systems must evolve to address this complex human-environment problem amid an evolving coupled climate, ecosystem, and political landscape [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the U.S., public messaging and early warnings primarily come from the National Weather Service (NWS) before ignition. The NWS issues Fire Weather Watches (FWW) when critical fire weather conditions (low relative humidity and windy conditions with dry fuels) are forecast at lead times of 24\u0026ndash;72 hours and, if necessary, transitions to Red Flag Warnings (RFW) within 12\u0026ndash;24 hours of the forecast event [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. These early warnings, while intended for operational use, are critical for prompting protective actions that reduce loss of life, property, and response burden [10; 11]. Once a fire ignites, emergency managers may issue evacuation warnings and orders (e.g., Ready, Set, Go! Program) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e] based on proximity to critical assets, fire suppression challenges, and current and forecast fire spread [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. While rarely used outside of a few areas in the central United States, the NWS can also issue Fire Warnings when a spreading structural fire or wildfire threatens a populated area [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. Unlike RFWs and FWWs, which are issued ahead of forecast critical fire weather, text-based Fire Warnings (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) are issued upon wildfire ignition, at the request of partnering land management agencies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Fire Warnings are disseminated through the NWS\u0026rsquo; Emergency Alert System (EAS) for the area covered by the polygon where the warning is requested (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, the NWS does not currently have direct authority to issue Fire Warnings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Fire Warning occupies a narrow, high-stakes transition point in the disaster timeline (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). While FWWs and RFWs (Phases 1 and 2) provide a broad, forecast-based window for situational awareness and to induce preparatory actions to reduce ignitions and mitigate new fire starts, the Fire Warning (Phase 3) shifts the focus from environmental risk to an active, tactical threat to life and property. Ideally, this warning serves as the final communicative bridge before a mandatory Evacuation Order (Phase 4) is triggered. However, the red arrow highlighted in the graphic underscores a primary challenge in modern wildfire response: the collapse of this linear progression. Because Fire Warnings are in some cases dependent on the detection of an ignition during extreme conditions, observed and/or expected rapid fire spread, and the subsequent request from local agencies, the lead time is often on the order of minutes (i.e., threats are imminent). This is particularly evident in \"dire scenarios,\" where the rapid rate of fire spread outpaces the traditional notification process, effectively dropping the lead time for tactical warnings to zero [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. In these fast-moving scenarios, the Fire Warning may be issued simultaneously with an Evacuation Order, or in extreme cases, follow it\u0026mdash;a discrepancy that effectively merges the warning and action phases and necessitates a more integrated approach to the end-to-end warning system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSince 2006, at least 530 Fire Warnings have been issued in the U.S. (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e), though many of the most destructive fires were not preceded by one. Over half (54%) were issued by the Norman and Amarillo Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs) in the Southern Great Plains, where a new collaborative issuance model has emerged. This Tactical Integrated Warning Team (IWT) approach, co-developed between Norman and the Texas and Oklahoma state forestry agencies and adopted at neighboring Weather Forecast Offices such as Amarillo, involves real-time collaboration among NWS, fire, and emergency management experts [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR18\" citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Using an interdisciplinary and multisectoral approach, Tactical IWTs assess fuel conditions, resource availability, recent and ongoing fire activity, critical assets-at-risk, and weather forecasts before a fire event. Upon detecting new fires or increasing fire activity, Tactical IWTs coordinate if and where to issue Fire Warnings based on the most recent forecasts and when available, fire spread modeling. Though currently limited to the Southern Great Plains, this model demonstrates one emergent pathway for coordinated Fire Warning issuance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHere, we provide the first evaluation of Fire Warnings, focusing on their potential to improve risk communication and emergency response from the perspectives of meteorologists and fire managers. The novel evaluation methodology integrates two distinct mixed methods studies to triangulate findings and offer a more comprehensive understanding of the benefits, opportunities, and limitations of expanding Fire Warnings and issuing them through a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach. While this paper centers on the case of Fire Warnings, its broader contribution lies in demonstrating the value of integrating diverse research methods to evaluate complex hazard communication challenges. By triangulating findings from two studies with distinct methodologies, this research offers a more comprehensive understanding than either could provide alone. This approach not only deepens insights into Fire Warnings but also serves as a framework for examining other types of hazard warnings. As risks grow more interconnected and context-dependent across natural hazards [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e], the ability to synthesize varied data sources, partner perspectives, and disciplinary approaches becomes increasingly essential for developing effective, actionable warning systems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the utility and impact of Fire Warnings on wildfire response, two distinct studies were conducted, each with a unique methodological approach. The first study involved a structured, week-long hands-on evaluation conducted by the NOAA Fire Weather Testbed (FWT) in the Global Systems Laboratory (GSL) (Boulder, CO) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. The FWT\u0026rsquo;s evaluation assessed the end-to-end fire detection, notification, and warning workflow within the Tactical IWT framework during past wildfire scenarios as the events unfolded in real-time. The evaluation\u0026rsquo;s success hinged on the active participation of both NWS meteorologists and state fire managers working in teams to reflect an operational environment. The second study, conducted by NOAA\u0026rsquo;s Decision Support Research and Evaluation Branch, adopted a different methodology by conducting nineteen virtual focus groups nationwide. These discussions, held with fire professionals across each NWS region, focused on how participants interpret and use fire-related weather products, with a particular emphasis on Fire Warnings. Together, data gleaned from these predominantly qualitative approaches provide novel insights into the operational and perceptual factors influencing the adoption, utilization, and perception of Fire Warnings before and during wildfire events across the diverse landscapes and jurisdictions of the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Study 1: Fire Weather Testbed (FWT) Evaluation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe FWT designed, facilitated, and collected data during a structured, week-long evaluation from 10\u0026ndash;14 June 2024 in Boulder, CO. The FWT evaluated four fire-related tools and processes including satellite-based fire detections, detection notification tools, the process of performing a Tactical IWT before and during an ignition, and the process of identifying an area to issue a Fire Warning, ultimately issuing one (or several) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Throughout, Fire Warnings were a central focus and connecting theme; all tools and processes informed whether to issue Fire Warnings. Participants received training on each tool and process from subject matter experts and then engaged in hands-on exercises, discussions, and simulated wildfire scenarios to evaluate these products throughout the week.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants included NWS meteorologists (\u003cem\u003en\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4\u003c/em\u003e) and state fire management personnel (\u003cem\u003en\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5\u003c/em\u003e) from California, Florida, Kansas, and North Carolina who were paired based on their geographic regions to reflect real-world NWS meteorologist and land manager coordination during wildfire events. Throughout the week, participants attended training presentations and product demonstrations on hot spot detection, issuing fire warnings using an integrated team approach, and hot spot alert notifications, with experienced users explaining the purpose, functionality, and applications of Fire Warnings. Following training and demonstrations, participants engaged in seven displaced real-time simulations of past wildfire events occurring between 2020 and 2024 across a variety of fuelscapes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Teams assessed fire ignition locations and subsequent fire behavior and spread to make real-time decisions about whether to issue Fire Warnings using a Tactical Integrated Warning Team (IWT) model\u0026mdash;a collaboration framework involving joint information exchange between meteorologists and fire management personnel. This model reflects practices used in the Southern Great Plains, where meteorology, fire, and emergency management experts often coordinate in real-time to issue Fire Warnings informed by shared situational awareness. Importantly, this IWT-based approach was specific to Study 1 and allowed participants to experience how collaborative decision-making might improve the targeting and communication of Fire Warnings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the effectiveness and usability of Fire Warnings, the study employed multiple methods, including surveys, focus groups, and daily discussions. Pre- and post-evaluation surveys captured shifts in participant perspectives, while daily questionnaires gathered immediate reactions to each exercise. Roundtable discussions provided informal feedback, and recorded focus groups at the end of the evaluation allowed for in-depth exploration of product utility and implementation considerations. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic coding [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e], while quantitative survey results were summarized statistically.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Study 2: Decision Support Research and Evaluation Branch (DSRE) Study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, the second study took a different approach, conducted by a researcher in NOAA\u0026rsquo;s DSRE Branch at GSL. Rather than an immersive evaluation, this study consisted of a series of 19 recorded virtual focus groups with fire partners, each lasting approximately 1.5 hours. Discussions examined how they interpret and use NWS fire products, such as FWWs and RFWs, with the final thirty minutes dedicated to Fire Warnings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnlike Study 1, which involved immersive simulations and collaborative real-time decision-making using the IWT model, Study 2 engaged a broader, nationwide sample of 85 participants through virtual focus groups. Recruited via targeted outreach to local WFOs, participants represented 16 WFOs across all six NWS regions, ensuring diverse geographic perspectives. However, these discussions did not include structured training or exposure to the IWT approach, nor did they prompt joint decision-making. Instead, participants shared their perceptions and interpretations of Fire Warnings in a discussion-based format. To enhance relevance, conversations were framed around key wildfire response timeframes\u0026mdash;from initial threat awareness to active fire conditions\u0026mdash;and used mock fire weather products tailored to each participant\u0026rsquo;s region.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFocus groups followed a semi-structured format, allowing for flexibility in discussion while maintaining consistency across sessions. To enhance validity, participants reviewed summaries of their discussions to confirm accuracy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Focus group recordings were professionally transcribed and analyzed using thematic coding to identify patterns in decision-making [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. An iterative coding process refined emerging themes, and intercoder reliability was assessed by an independent co-coder, reinforcing the consistency and credibility of findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Study Comparison and Significance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough both studies examined Fire Warnings and included similar discussion topics\u0026mdash;such as how Fire Warnings might influence decision-making, potential barriers to adoption, and whether they fill a gap in existing wildfire response processes\u0026mdash;their methodologies were vastly different (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Study 1 offered depth through immersive simulation and collaborative issuance under a mock Tactical IWT model, while Study 2 offered breadth through a wide geographic sample of professionals responding based on their prior knowledge and experience as opposed to training from experienced product users. Additionally, Study 1 spanned a full week, while the focus groups in Study 2 lasted only 1.5 hours each.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe differing study methodologies offer a dynamic and comprehensive understanding of operational perspectives of Fire Warnings, highlighting both the operational insights gained through immersive training and simulated real-time decision-making, as well as the broader attitudes and perceptions captured from a diverse national sample. However, each approach also introduces potential biases\u0026mdash;whether through prolonged exposure to product demonstrations in the FWT study or the lack of direct training and exposure in the DSRE focus groups. These methodological implications and their influence on the findings are further explored in the results section.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparative Summary of Methodological Approaches for Study 1 (FWT Evaluation) and Study 2 (DSRE Focus Groups). This table highlights the distinctions between the immersive, simulation-based environment of the Fire Weather Testbed and the broad, perception-based virtual focus groups conducted nationwide.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeature\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy 1: Fire Weather Testbed Evaluation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy 2: DSRE Focus Groups\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePrimary Goal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssess end-to-end workflow \u0026amp; real-time decision-making\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCapture nationwide perceptions \u0026amp; interpretation of products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMethodology\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImmersive, hands-on simulations (tactical IWT model)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSemi-structured virtual focus groups\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDuration\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne week\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.5 hours per session\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eScale \u0026amp; Breadth\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 NWS meteorologists; 5 state land managers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e85 participants (nationwide sample)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGeography\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecific regions (CA, FL, KS, NC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNationwide (All 6 NWS regions; 16 WFOs)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSetting\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn-person (Boulder, CO); operational environment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVirtual; discussion-based\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTraining\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStructured training \u0026amp; product demonstrations included\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo formal training; based on short description and prior knowledge/experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eKey Tools Used\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSatellite detections, notification tools, IWT framework\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMock fire weather products tailored to regions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results \u0026 Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eStudy 1, the weeklong, in-person FWT evaluation, involved both NWS meteorologist and fire management participants (total n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9), and findings highlight each participant group\u0026rsquo;s perspectives and concerns regarding Fire Warnings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Study 2, the Decision Support Research and Evaluation Branch (DSRE) study, included only fire management participants (total n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;85), and thus, findings are presented collectively for all participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Study 1: Fire Weather Testbed (FWT) Evaluation Findings\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eHaving worked in mock IWT teams throughout Study 1, NWS meteorologists viewed Fire Warnings as a useful tool for public risk communication, complementing other alert systems to enhance public awareness and safety [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. They also saw potential for Fire Warnings to assist operational teams by conveying critical weather information affecting firefighter safety and situational awareness. As one participant put it, Fire Warnings would be a valuable \u003cem\u003e\"tool in the toolbox\"\u003c/em\u003e for protecting lives and property. However, meteorologists raised concerns about determining the appropriate warning boundaries, particularly in relation to \"buffer zones.\" Notably, meteorologists tended to buffer larger warning areas for weather-related events, while fire managers preferred boundaries that more precisely reflected fire activity. The question of who holds final authority for issuing Fire Warnings was also a concern for both groups, particularly for fires spanning multiple jurisdictions (e.g., federal, state, and local).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFire managers echoed the meteorologists\u0026rsquo; support of Fire Warnings as a public communication tool but identified several barriers to implementation. These included confusion with other NWS products (e.g., RFWs, evacuation orders), uncertainties around public risk perception, and behavioral responses such as alert fatigue or preemptive evacuations leading to traffic congestion. Coordination was another concern, given that issuing authority varies by state, complicating consistent implementation. A major issue was the NWS\u0026rsquo;s current need to seek secondary approval and the inability to disseminate Fire Warnings via the Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Many fire managers argued that fires, like flash floods, are weather-driven and should be treated similarly. Some supported granting NWS direct authority to issue Fire Warnings\u0026mdash;an idea that differed from meteorologists\u0026rsquo; preference to consult fire managers for fire behavior expertise before issuance. This coordination requirement was widely seen as a bureaucratic barrier to timely action. Additionally, several fire managers suggested reclassifying Fire Warnings as weather-related products to enable rapid, widespread dissemination via WEA alerts. As one participant asked, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;How is a flash flood a weather emergency and a fire is not?\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e- highlighting the perceived inconsistency in hazard classification and the potential benefits of integrating Fire Warnings into existing weather alert systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Study 2: Decision Support Research and Evaluation (DSRE) Study Findings\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy 2 explored perspectives of a wide range of fire professionals across 16 NWS County Warning Areas (CWAs). While some participants saw potential value in Fire Warnings\u0026mdash;particularly in areas with frequent and intense fire events or where existing fire alerts may be insufficient\u0026mdash;this view was not universally shared. Supporters emphasized that effectiveness would depend on conditions like strong public education and resolving logistical challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe majority of participants raised significant concerns about implementation, especially regarding existing systems and public perception. The most frequently mentioned concern was the existence of other alert systems already in place. Many fire managers expressed that localized programs, such as Ready Set Go!, were already effective in alerting the public and that the introduction of Fire Warnings might create redundancy and confusion. As an Emergency Manager in Northern California noted, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;...fire warning[s] would kind of \u0026hellip; muddy the waters a little bit with what we have already, which has been working really great over the last four years\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e These localized systems were seen as more attuned to regional needs and better aligned with local risk communication practices. Some participants also expressed concerns about public confusion, particularly if Fire Warnings were issued too frequently or were not carefully differentiated from other fire-related alerts like evacuation orders or RFWs. Alert fatigue was another concern, with some fearing that too many notifications could desensitize the public and weaken the impact of truly urgent messages.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTiming of Fire Warning issuance was another major issue raised, which in part may be due to a lack of familiarity with the speed at which Fire Warnings can be requested and implemented in a coordinated manner. Because fires can spread rapidly, participants highlighted concerns that evacuation orders may be issued before Fire Warnings are even considered, potentially rendering the Fire Warning unnecessary or irrelevant. They felt that this potential timing mismatch could lead to a lack of urgency around Fire Warnings, reducing their effectiveness in mobilizing response efforts and protective actions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcerns about authority and responsibility also surfaced as a significant barrier to the widespread adoption of Fire Warnings. Participants questioned who would control issuance, especially given the complex jurisdictional landscape. Some feared power struggles over who \u0026ldquo;owns\u0026rdquo; the decision, with considerable variability in procedures depending on the region. This lack of clarity was viewed as a major barrier to consistent adoption.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the added resources required to issue Fire Warnings were noted as a concern. Fire managers noted that requesting warnings would require time, coordination, and administrative support\u0026mdash;resources already stretched during active incidents. As a Deputy Fire Chief in Kansas explained, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I know when we get busy in the heat of a fire, I'm not thinking about calling the Weather [Service] for a warning.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e There was also skepticism about whether Fire Warnings would be needed in all areas. Several participants emphasized that some regions may not face the same level of wildfire risk or may already have sufficient localized warning systems in place, making the Fire Warning system unnecessary or redundant in certain contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Interpreting the Similarities and Differences: Implications for Fire Warnings\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe two studies revealed similarities and differences regarding the potential application of Fire Warnings, shedding light on benefits and concerns that were largely consistent across the groups. A central benefit shared in both studies was the recognition of Fire Warnings as a potentially valuable tool for public risk communication, particularly in enhancing public awareness and safety during wildfire events, although this was emphasized far more in Study 1. However, concerns also emerged in both studies regarding the potential for public confusion and redundancy. Participants across both studies expressed worry about how Fire Warnings might be misinterpreted or confused with other fire-related alerts, such as RFWs or evacuation orders. Additionally, participants were concerned about alert fatigue, particularly if Fire Warnings were issued too frequently or without clear differentiation from other alerts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe participants involved in these studies revealed differing degrees of concern and skepticism in implementing and issuing Fire Warnings. Study 2 revealed a far greater range of concerns regarding Fire Warning implementation. Study 2 participants raised issues related to existing localized alert systems, jurisdictional confusion, and the need for additional resources, indicating a greater skepticism and wariness about the efficacy and practicality of Fire Warnings. In contrast, Study 1 participants expressed more cautious optimism by the end of the evaluation. Although they identified barriers such as bureaucratic challenges and coordination issues, they generally recognized the potential of Fire Warnings and converged on a more positive outlook.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, methodological differences between studies may have influenced resulting variation in participant perceptions of Fire Warnings. Study 1 participants received active, multi-day training and educational exposure led by early adopters of Fire Warnings. This direct engagement and training likely created a more informed and open perspective toward the system's possibilities. Additionally, participants expressed increasingly positive perceptions of Fire Warning as the week-long FWT evaluation progressed, further supporting the idea that training and exposure to the practical uses and successes of Fire Warnings can play a crucial role in shaping attitudes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, Study 1\u0026rsquo;s reliance on the experiences and training provided by early adopters of Fire Warnings may limit the generalizability of the findings. Most fire managers nationwide have not had the opportunity for the level of direct training that Study 1 participants received. The contrast in findings between the studies may, in part, reflect this disparity in training\u0026mdash;participants in Study 2, with limited exposure, expressed much more skepticism towards Fire Warnings. This suggests that perceived Fire Warning effectiveness may depend significantly on the training and educational outreach provided to operational end-users. Relative to Study 2, Study 1 findings demonstrate that more widespread and consistent exposure to Fire Warnings can reduce concerns and increase acceptance across a broader range of fire managers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4. Recommendations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith growing human and asset exposure to increasingly frequent and severe natural hazards [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e], we suggest that both our general insights and specific recommendations can inform the development of a new generation of risk communication frameworks. These frameworks will need to support increasingly interdisciplinary and multisectoral communication, coordination, and collaboration. This approach finds a compelling precedent in the development and ongoing evolution of the U.S. West Coast's ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning (EEW) system. From its very inception, ShakeAlert was intentionally designed as a \"socio-technical system,\" where the integration of social science expertise alongside traditional geophysical sciences was paramount [24; 25]. Social scientists were deeply embedded in the product development and deployment phases, tasked with understanding diverse user needs, informing equitable communication strategies, and continuously evaluating the system's societal benefit and how information is perceived and acted upon [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. This proactive, interdisciplinary engagement from the start has been crucial to ShakeAlert's effectiveness, demonstrating that successful warning systems are not solely about accurate scientific data, but fundamentally about how that information integrates with human behavior and operational realities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the Fire Warning process, a key recommendation that emerged from both studies is the importance of comprehensive training for all practitioners involved. Both studies highlighted gaps in knowledge and concerns about the expertise of various groups in utilizing Fire Warnings. To address this, we recommend implementing robust Fire Warning training for NWS personnel, land management agencies, emergency management agencies, and other fire partners. This training should focus not only on the technical aspects of issuing Fire Warnings but also on the collaborative processes required for their successful implementation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Beyond strengthening interagency relationships and optimizing resources, such training could streamline the warning process and facilitate issuing Fire Warnings within approximately 10 minutes of a request [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, public education campaigns should be curated to increase awareness and understanding of recommended protective actions during Fire Warnings and clarify the differences between NWS products. Educational materials should stress how Fire Warnings integrate with emergency management evacuation guidance to ensure consistent messaging during high-stress situations when multiple products are being rapidly communicated. Collaborative infographics (e.g., Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) using locally relevant terminology should be shared collaboratively by the NWS and other fire management partners via social media, NWS websites, and broadcast meteorologists ahead of fire season and potential fire weather.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother crucial recommendation is to prioritize local needs when considering the implementation of Fire Warnings. While the success of Fire Warnings in places like Oklahoma and Texas provides valuable insights [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e], this issuance approach may not be feasible or appropriate in other states/regions. The implementation of Fire Warnings will likely vary across regions based on existing alert systems, wildfire risk levels (i.e., the exposure and vulnerability of critical assets), and other local factors regarding the fire environment and fire management. In some areas, participants in Study 2 felt that Fire Warnings may not be necessary due to well-established localized systems or lower wildfire threats. Therefore, while Fire Warnings should aim for consistency in standards and in the information provided, their application must be flexible to adapt to the unique needs of each community. This approach ensures that Fire Warnings serve their purpose without creating unnecessary redundancy or confusion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLastly, we recommend additional, intentional research, particularly on the topic of public perceptions and potential avenues for the implementation of Fire Warnings. While existing research has modeled evacuation decision-making and the timing of physical departure during wildfires [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e], those studies primarily focus on the broader behavioral response to evacuation orders and warnings as a general category. There remains a critical need for research focused specifically on the Fire Warning as a distinct, NWS-disseminated tactical product. Alert fatigue and confusion concerns highlighted in both of our studies reveal a gap in understanding how the public differentiates these rare, text-based alerts from more common weather products or local evacuation orders. Future research should investigate how the specific phrasing, source authority, and delivery of Fire Warnings influence public perception and motivate protective behavior before a mandatory evacuation is even triggered. Future research should also focus on engaging law enforcement, as participants from both studies described the key role of law enforcement in evacuation orders and coordination during wildfire events. Their involvement in the decision-making process could help clarify roles and responsibilities and streamline the warning and evacuation processes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThese two studies offer a unique, multidimensional look into the emerging role of Fire Warnings in wildfire risk communication and coordination. While the concept of a Fire Warning resonates with many fire professionals as a potentially valuable public safety tool, its operationalization is anything but straightforward. Both studies illustrate that Fire Warnings cannot\u0026mdash;and should not\u0026mdash;be implemented as a one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, successful integration will require strategic, locally-tailored approaches that reflect diverse risk landscapes, institutional capacities, education campaigns, continuous public and interagency engagement, and alert infrastructures. Depending on the structure of a given emergency management system, this may require coordination across multiple levels of government.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA major takeaway is the value of integrating diverse research methodologies, designs, and perspectives to evaluate wildfire communication tools like Fire Warnings. By combining simulations and discussions, qualitative and quantitative methods, different scales, and varied end user viewpoints, these studies provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding than any single approach could offer. Methodological triangulation not only deepens insight into Fire Warnings\u0026rsquo; potential benefits and challenges but also demonstrates the value of blending diverse approaches to capture complex realities of current problems that require an interdisciplinary lens.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile integrating physical and social sciences is crucial\u0026mdash;linking technical hazard knowledge with human behavior and operational insight\u0026mdash;the broader lesson lies in embracing methodological diversity and engaging end users throughout. This reveals how products function in practice, including social, behavioral, and logistical factors that affect effectiveness. The development of systems like ShakeAlert illustrates how a socio-technical, interdisciplinary approach\u0026mdash;grounded in both rigorous science and real-world engagement\u0026mdash;can produce more actionable and trusted guidance for public safety. Such examples underscore the value of continuing to build integrative frameworks that can evolve with increasingly widespread, severe, and complex threats.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs wildfire risks increase in complexity with changing environmental conditions and expanding wildland-urban interface development [7; 29], it is essential to continue leveraging interdisciplinary and multi-method research frameworks prior to full implementation. This paper exemplifies how combining complementary research designs and end user perspectives can uncover insights to support more informed, adaptable, and effective warning systems. Ultimately, advancing hazard communication depends not just on better science, but on thoughtful integration of varied research methods and iterative real-world input, producing actionable guidance that supports agencies, policymakers, and communities in enhancing public safety.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCRediT authorship contribution statement:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConceptualization: SH, EW, JV, BJH, ZT\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMethodology: SH, EW, JV, ZT\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFormal analysis: SH, EW, JV\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVisualization: SH, BJH\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWriting \u0026ndash; original draft: SH, BJH\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWriting \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing: SH, EW, JV, BJH, ZT\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of competing interest:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors declare no financial or non-financial competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe sincerely thank the entire laboratory team for their support and collaboration, with special appreciation to the FWT Evaluation Meteorologist for his contributions to the FWT Evaluation. We also extend our gratitude to all the participants from both studies, as well as subject matter experts and product developers whose insights and perspectives were essential to this research. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author and do not reflect the views of NOAA or the U.S. Department of Commerce.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by a NOAA cooperative agreement for the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (NA24OARX432C0007), the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) Provision 5, Fire 6 (NA23OAR40504161), the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (NA23OAR4050133D), and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law IIJA-Fire 1: Fire Weather Testbed Activities (NA23OAR4050418I). The funders played no role in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or the writing of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn alignment with open science principles, methods and data will be made available to bona fide researchers upon reasonable request, excluding any personally identifiable information (PII). Furthermore, focus group guides from both studies have been uploaded to DesignSafe, a long-term data repository that allows for free access to researchers [30; 31].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBowman, D. et al. Vegetation fires in the Anthropocene. \u003cem\u003eNat. Rev. Earth Environ.\u003c/em\u003e 1, 500\u0026ndash;515 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBowman, D. M. J. S. et al. Fire in the Earth system. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e 324, 481\u0026ndash;484 (2009).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMahood, A. L. et al. Seasonality of wildfire risk: A well-defined but changing signal. \u003cem\u003eProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.\u003c/em\u003e 119, e2111875119 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSyphard, A. D., Brennan, T. J. \u0026amp; Keeley, J. E. The importance of building construction materials relative to other factors affecting structure survival during wildfire. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.\u003c/em\u003e 21, 140\u0026ndash;147 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCalkin, D. E., Cohen, J. D., M. A. Finney, M. P. \u0026amp; Thompson, M. P. How risk management can prevent future wildfire disasters in the wildland-urban interface. \u003cem\u003eProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.\u003c/em\u003e 111, 746\u0026ndash;751 (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMockrin, M. H. et al. Where wildfire risk meets land use planning: A review of policy and governance challenges in the United States. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e 114, 105957 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurton, C. et al. Global burned area increasingly explained by climate change. \u003cem\u003eNat. Clim. Chang.\u003c/em\u003e 14, 1\u0026ndash;7 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcCaffrey, S. M. \u0026amp; Olsen, C. S. Research perspectives on the public and fire management: A synthesis of current social science on eight essential questions. \u003cem\u003eUSDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-104\u003c/em\u003e (2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Weather Service. \u003cem\u003eNational Weather Service Instruction 10\u0026ndash;401: Fire Weather Services Product Specification\u003c/em\u003e (National Weather Service, Silver Spring, MD, 2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMileti, D. S. \u0026amp; Sorensen, J. H. \u003cem\u003eCommunication of emergency public warnings: A social science perspective and state-of-the-art assessment\u003c/em\u003e (Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., 1990).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCova, T. J., Drews, F. A., Siebeneck, L. K. \u0026amp; Musters, A. Protective actions in wildfires: Evacuate or shelter-in-place? \u003cem\u003eNat. Hazards Rev.\u003c/em\u003e 10, 151\u0026ndash;162 (2009).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Association of Fire Chiefs. Ready, Set, Go! Program. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.wildlandfireRSG.org\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.wildlandfireRSG.org\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2025).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaranghides, A. \u0026amp; Link, E. D. WUI fire evacuation and sheltering considerations: Assessment, planning, and execution (ESCAPE). \u003cem\u003eNIST Tech. Note 2262r1\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.2262r1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.6028/NIST.TN.2262r1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2025).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Weather Service. Non-Weather Emergency Products Specification (Instruction 10\u0026ndash;518). \u003cem\u003eNOAA\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.weather.gov/media/directives/010_pdfs/pd01005018curr.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.weather.gov/media/directives/010_pdfs/pd01005018curr.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Weather Service. Fire Weather Services Product Specification (Instruction 10\u0026ndash;401). \u003cem\u003eNOAA\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.weather.gov/media/directives/010_pdfs/pd01004001curr.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.weather.gov/media/directives/010_pdfs/pd01004001curr.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCova, T. J., Li, D., Siebeneck, L. K. \u0026amp; Drews, F. A. Toward Simulating Dire Wildfire Scenarios. \u003cem\u003eNat. Hazards Rev.\u003c/em\u003e 22, 04021019 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLindley, T. T. et al. Retrospective demonstrations of an integrated team approach to fire warnings for western United States wildfire disasters. \u003cem\u003eJ. Oper. Meteorol.\u003c/em\u003e 12, 54\u0026ndash;71 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWells, E. M. et al. NOAA Fire Weather Testbed launches first in-person evaluation. \u003cem\u003eBull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-24-0204.1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1175/BAMS-D-24-0204.1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2025).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNOAA Fire Weather Testbed. Fire Weather Testbed Evaluations #002\u0026ndash;004: An end-to-end evaluation of NOAA\u0026rsquo;s emerging wildland fire detection and warning capabilities. \u003cem\u003eNOAA Tech. Memo. OAR GSL-071\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.25923/4pqf-7g49\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.25923/4pqf-7g49\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2025).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUccellini, L. W. \u0026amp; Ten Hoeve, J. E. Evolving the National Weather Service to build a weather-ready nation: Connecting observations, forecasts, and warnings to decision-makers through impact-based decision support services. \u003cem\u003eBull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.\u003c/em\u003e 100, 1923\u0026ndash;1942 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun, V. \u0026amp; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. \u003cem\u003eQual. Res. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e 3, 77\u0026ndash;101 (2006).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLincoln, Y. S. \u0026amp; Guba, E. G. \u003cem\u003eNaturalistic inquiry\u003c/em\u003e (Sage, 1985).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Weather Service. Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.weather.gov/riw/WEA_Info\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.weather.gov/riw/WEA_Info\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2025).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTan, M. L. et al. Understanding the social aspects of earthquake early warning: A literature review. \u003cem\u003eFront. Commun.\u003c/em\u003e 7, 939242 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcBride, S. K. et al. Developing post-alert messaging for ShakeAlert, the earthquake early warning system for the West Coast of the United States of America. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.\u003c/em\u003e 49, 101735 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJenkins, M. R., McBride, S. K., Morgoch, M. \u0026amp; Smith, H. Considerations for creating equitable and inclusive communication campaigns associated with ShakeAlert, the earthquake early warning system for the West Coast of the USA. \u003cem\u003eDisaster Prev. Manag.\u003c/em\u003e 31, 79\u0026ndash;91 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSumy, D. F. et al. Education Initiatives to Support Earthquake Early Warning: A Retrospective and a Roadmap. \u003cem\u003eSeismol. Res. Lett.\u003c/em\u003e 93, 3498\u0026ndash;3513 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhao, X. et al. Estimating wildfire evacuation decision and departure timing using large-scale GPS data. \u003cem\u003eTransp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.\u003c/em\u003e 107, 103277 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRadeloff, V. C. et al. Rising wildfire risk to houses in the United States, especially in grasslands and shrublands. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e 382, 702\u0026ndash;707 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHoekstra, S. Focus group/survey instruments. Evaluating National Weather Service fire weather products within a fire partner and public decision-making context. \u003cem\u003eDesignSafe-CI\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17603/ds2-89h2-de64\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17603/ds2-89h2-de64\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2025).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWells, E. et al. An end-to-end evaluation of NOAA's emerging wildland fire detection and warning capabilities. \u003cem\u003eDesignSafe-CI\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17603/ds2-dkt2-2f95\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17603/ds2-dkt2-2f95\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2025).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"npj-natural-hazards","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [npj Natural Hazards](https://www.nature.com/npjnathazards/)","snPcode":"44304","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/44304/3","title":"npj Natural Hazards","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"NPJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9431466/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9431466/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAs wildfires increase in frequency, size, and intensity, effective tactical warning systems are critical for public safety to protect life and property. Fire Warnings—rarely used, text-based alerts issued by the National Weather Service (NWS) at the request of land and emergency managers— are intended to alert the public to imminent wildfire threats. Here, we present the first national assessment of the NWS Fire Warning product through two interdisciplinary studies involving mixed qualitative and quantitative methods: a week-long operational simulation with NWS forecasters and state land managers (Study 1), and nineteen virtual focus groups with eighty-five fire professionals nationwide (Study 2). Key findings reveal a familiarity gap: while immersive training leads to cautious optimism regarding the tool’s utility, participants across studies had concern over jurisdictional authority, alert fatigue, and potential redundancy with local systems. We argue that the successful implementation of Fire Warnings requires a standardized, yet adaptable protocol that shifts from a purely technical notification to a socio-technical framework prioritizing iterative interdisciplinary collaboration and localized transition strategies. These insights offer a roadmap for refining emergency alerts not only for wildfires but for all rapidly escalating, multisectoral cascading hazard events.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Fire Warnings in Context: Operational Insights and the Case for Interdisciplinary Research Coordination","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-26 17:12:08","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9431466/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-04-29T05:16:25+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-28T22:48:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-23T10:54:07+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"292498707931347513432591479065599575459","date":"2026-04-19T14:48:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"180228333739594110177660821267973497993","date":"2026-04-17T14:32:01+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-17T11:38:10+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-17T11:25:45+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-04-17T11:19:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"npj Natural Hazards","date":"2026-04-15T23:25:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"npj-natural-hazards","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [npj Natural Hazards](https://www.nature.com/npjnathazards/)","snPcode":"44304","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/44304/3","title":"npj Natural Hazards","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"NPJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"dd26f1b3-7523-4ee4-96ca-533f75ee1020","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 26th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"in-revision","subjectAreas":[{"id":66876658,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences"},{"id":66876659,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Natural hazards"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-29T05:25:22+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-26 17:12:08","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9431466","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9431466","identity":"rs-9431466","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}