Policy narratives in forest fire management

As the risk of forest fires increases around the globe, the issues of how to control, suppress, and prevent them are the subjects of growing public and political attention. This study focuses on the political debate in Germany regarding forest fires and provides insights into the conceptualization of forest fires and forest fire management at the federal and state policymaking levels. By examining forest fire narratives through the policy lens, this case study takes an exemplary extreme weather event exacerbated by climate change as an opportunity to examine the policy response to this problem. In this way, we examine the role of policy narratives in civil and environmental protection and disaster management. The findings reveal that all politicians examined in this study agree that forest fire management is an urgent matter that needs to be supported. In the prevailing human-centered narrative, policymakers see active forest management and use as tools to improve forest resilience to fire and other calamities. Those who advocate a nature-based narrative assert that it is natural processes in protected forest areas that most effectively enhance resilience. The policy solutions derived from these views include financial support, recognition of the work of foresters, forest fire managers, and civil protection agencies as well as, depending on the type of narrative argument favored, either increased forest management or improved protection of forest ecologies. This suggests that narrative analysis may illuminate the rationales underlying previous policy decisions and the framework for future ones. This contribution throws light on how narratives shape policymaking and, by extension, disaster management. Future studies should therefore take into account the influence of prevailing narratives when it comes to evaluating the potential that policymaking can offer for disaster management in the future.


Introduction
Narratives help people to organize and make sense of information.Thus, many public policy academics and social scientists argue that narratives 'construct policy realities' (Shanahan et al 2018, p 926).By shaping public discourse and policymaking, narratives set the stage for addressing complicated issues and problem-solving approaches (e.g.Jones 2014, Kirkpatrick andStoutenborough 2018).
Complex problem-solving grows more and more relevant for environmental politics as the past few years have been characterized by an increasing number of extreme weather events, including in Europe (UNDRR 2020).In Germany, forest fires have occurred on about 447 hectares per year on average since 1991, most of them in pine forests in the northeastern state of Brandenburg (Fernandez-Anez et al 2021, Gnilke andSanders 2021).These forest fires have prompted many politicians to speak out about the problem and to offer possible solution strategies (see for example Kerbleski 2019, Baker et al 2020, MDR 2022).
The analysis of narratives underlying these political statements helps to shed light on people's preferred ways of thinking about the world-their cognitive schemata (Roe 1994, Shanahan et al 2018).Recent research has often focused on the attribution of responsibility in the aftermath of forest fires (McLennan andHandmer 2012, Castelló andMontagut 2019).This attribution also becomes apparent in the analysis of narratives.
Previous analyses of forest fire narratives further reveal how emotional the debate on this threat is: fires are portrayed as something dangerous to combat and control (Paveglio et al 2011, Wilke 2016, Matlock et al 2017).Therefore, especially in the context of the climate crisis discourse, forest fires are oftentimes used as focusing events (Hopke 2020, Groff 2021).
By analyzing narratives of forest fire and the consequent decision-making on forest fire management in politics, this study examines how policy narratives affect interdepartmental problem-solving, affecting environmental, civil protection and climate policies and subsequent management practices on the ground.Because of their complexity (affecting different policy departments) and emotionality (metaphorical use and vivid perception) the analysis of policy narratives of forest fires and their management serves as an excellent case to investigate interactions between perception, narratives, and scope of action.We investigate how forest fire management and forest management are represented in policy debates, which responsibilities are attributed to different stakeholders, and which policy solutions are derived from these conditions.Our research illuminates how different conceptualizations legitimize different scopes of action for politicians, which in turn may affect the organizational structure of forest fire management and drive public discourse.

Narratives in policymaking
Narrative scholars agree that reciting, telling, and interpreting stories is a fundamental trait we use to construct and order our worlds (Böschen and Viehöver 2015, Gadinger and Yildiz 2017, Shanahan et al 2018, Gadinger and Simon 2019).With the so-called 'argumentative turn' in policy analysis, the focus of academic attention has shifted from the analysis of constitutions of power and conflict of interest to the use of language and emotion (Fischer andForester 2002, Fischer andGottweis 2012).Focusing on narratives enables policy researchers to circumvent the previously dominant view that rationalism is the sole guiding principle in political decision-making (Gadinger and Simon 2019).Assuming that democratic, collective decision-making is strongly influenced by narratives, it is important to assess how politicians present their arguments (Gadinger and Yildiz 2017).

The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF)
The assumption of the NPF is that humans are storytellers (Homo narrans) and that public policy is shaped by narratives (Jones 2018).It serves as the basis of this study because of its replicable, systematic, and falsifiable approach to analyzing narratives concerning policy (Jones and McBeth 2010).Assessing policy narratives calls for consideration of the following 'narrative elements' that underlie every story: • a setting, in which the policy problem is explained, • characters, usually a villain, a victim, and a hero, • a plot, which shows interactions between characters and settings, and gives possible reasons for the current state, and • the moral of the narrative, which usually includes a policy proposal to address the problem (Jones 2018).
Individual and shared 'belief sets' influence setting description, characterizations, plot use and consequent moral of the story (Jones 2018, Shanahan et al 2018).
The description of intentionality of characters and underlying causal mechanisms (such as, for example, intentional wrong-doing, lack of awareness, or structural limitations) gives insights into how a policy problem is constructed and supposed to be resolved (Stone 2011, Merry 2016, Shanahan et al 2019).Following certain storylines, the plots encourage in their audience a certain attitude towards, and suggestions for evaluating, the current measures and actions taken by the 'main' characters (see figure 1) (Stone 2011).
The plot types define how roles are distributed and refer to responsibilities (Stone 2011, Gadinger andYildiz 2017).For example, according to Stone (2011), stories of decline are often used to characterize a policy problem so as to motivate people to take control.While stories of helplessness evoke feelings of vulnerability, she finds that stories of control convey a sense of hope and security.As instances of the former, however, conspiracy stories tend to focus on moral condemnation as they suggest that human agency is being abused by a few beneficiaries who act opaquely and for their own benefit (Stone 2011).
Narratives can further be used strategically by politicians to influence the political process.Focusing on the use of narrative strategies therefore implies examining different uses of narratives in relation to various goals (Jones 2018).As policymaking also depends on power relations, political groupings in power usually employ different strategies than do opposing groups (McBeth et al 2007).Generally, the opposing group seeks to mobilize more people behind an issue by expanding on its implications, arguing that the many have to bear costs that benefit a few (expansion strategy), while the governing coalition seeks to contain the issue and maintain the status quo by diffusing the benefits and presenting a minimal picture of the costs (containment strategy) (McBeth et al 2007, Shanahan et al 2011, 2013).Another strategy is to use scientific evidence to support one's own statement, refute opposing statements or as a matter of fact (McBeth et al 2007).

The transformative power of policy narratives
Narratives can both express past and current experiences and help imagine possible futures (Böschen and  Viehöver 2015).In this way, they provide information about expectations of political figures in terms of the behavior of protagonists and the responsibilities attributed to them.Analyzing narratives can therefore be useful in determining who is attributing agency to whom when it comes to making and justifying policy decisions (Roe 1994).
Arguments expressed in the form of narratives influence policymaking by devising and 'storyboarding' possible solutions, legitimizing those proposals and consequent decisions by creating a setting and a plot (Roe 1994, Böschen and Viehöver 2015, Gadinger and Yildiz 2017, Jones 2018).With the aim of legitimizing certain measures, narratives represent different stakeholders' claims to power and ultimately serve to demonstrate the apparent plurality of voices in the debate (Gadinger and Yildiz 2017).The power of policy narratives arises as a result of their reception by a wider public and, building on this reception and interaction, can take a transformative dimension (van Dijk 2006).For example, Kirkpatrick and Stoutenborough (2018) show how decision-makers are guided by the expected public perception in their political decision-making and Jones (2014) reveals how narratives shape the public's perceptions of climate change.Thus, as shown in figure 1, all policy narratives are affected by and in turn affect social narratives.

Method
To gain in-depth insights on political conceptualizations of forest fires, we used a structuring qualitative content analysis approach (Mayring 2000).Keyword research on online political plenary protocol databases (DIP and ELVIS) with the keywords 'Waldbrand' (forest fire); 'Brand/brennen' (fire/burning), and 'Wald' (forest) resulted in an initial collection of political speeches in the aftermath of frequent forest fires, between January 2019 and August 2021.As shown in table 1, the final material was chosen based on selected quality criteria on inner and outer characteristics, intention and origin of the documents (Mayring 2000).
The selection process led to the analysis of 152 political speeches from 24 plenary protocols at both federal and state forums.The speeches were evaluated by means of structuring qualitative content analysis, which aims to filter content that can be categorized according to specific themes and aspects (Mayring 2000).In this case, the specific theme is the political representation of forests and forest fire management, and the aspects refer to the narrative elements.These categories were derived both deductively (from theory) and inductively (grounded in the data analyzed).Following the systematic steps of qualitative content analysis, we first deduced master codes from the NPF  (see figure 2, step 2).The code system was then extended by inductively adding codes from the analysis of the material (step 4) through multiple coding loops until theoretical saturation was reached, meaning that no more categories were needed to describe the qualitative data (see Strauss and Corbin 1998 and arrow in figure 2).This resulted in 126 codes and 1900 coded segments.
The narrative elements that identified and distinguished aspects of the narratives were divided into setting (on-going problem, sudden problem), characters (victim, villain, hero), plot (stories of helplessness and control, stymied progress, or decline, conspiracy stories, change as illusory, and an inductively added 'story of success'), and moral of the story, categorized by the policy solutions identified (see figure 3 and appendix).

Study context
Compared to other global regions, Germany is relatively free from the scourge of forest fires due to its temperate location, fragmented landscapes, and effective systems of monitoring (Galizia et al 2022).But climate change has increased the risk of forest fire in Germany as well (Goldammer 2019, Carnicer et al 2022).Germany's north-east is the most vulnerable to suffering forest fire because of its soil conditions, the transition of the continental climate (Glade et al 2017), and the pattern of tree growth that tends to consist of pine monocultures of the same age (Thonicke and Cramer 2006).The current picture of forest fire risks in Brandenburg shows a dependence on three factors: climatic and weather conditions (precipitation, heat, drought, wind, vapor pressure deficit), the forest condition (including soil conditions and types of tree species), and human interaction with the forest (recreational, economic and industrial use and misuse, and forest management) (Glade et al 2017, Blumroeder et al 2022).Against the backdrop of these particular conditions, we now look at the political debate in the context of policymaking at the state level as well as on the national stage.
To assess the political debate, it is important to understand the political and management responsibilities relevant to the topic.In accordance with general emergency management protocols, forest fire management in Germany is organized in a decentralized way.Local firefighters within each of the federal states and municipalities are responsible for To put the different perceptions of forest fires and forest fire management into context, it is important to keep in mind that German politics features parties that either participate in or oppose the government.In the period under review, the Christian democratic CDU/CSU and social democratic SPD governed in the national parliament, the Bundestag, with Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (the Greens), the liberal democratic FDP, Die Linke (radical left) and AfD (radical right) making up the opposition.
Brandenburg's state parliament changed from a coalition of SPD and Die Linke to an alliance of SPD, CDU, and the Greens in September 2019.The opposition tended to be led by Greens before the September elections, and the AfD and Die Linke after, while the FDP representatives' contributions to debates concerning forest fires was negligible.
As shown in table 2, which lists the number of coded speeches from the different parties, the sample includes an equal number of speeches from the opposition and the government.

Results
The following analysis describes perceptions of the policy problem (setting), the attribution of roles, responsibility, and plot (characters and plot), and the consequent policy solutions (moral of the story), and their justification.

Forest fire perception and problem description
The problem description in state and federal parliament is mostly consistent amongst all speakers.All politicians portray forests as suffering from calamities and climate change and perceive the forest fire risk as growing.They may refer to forest fires as battle scenarios or 'raging' (L/6/81: 15,26)3 and 'threatening' (G/7/9: 32) monsters to be tackled, with opposition speakers often stressing urgency.However, the representation of urgency and the perception of the problem as an on-going or sudden event differ.While most speakers present the issue as on-going and long-term, some neglect this temporal aspect.Apart from a few AfD speakers, all agree that climate change, because of heat and drought, heightens the risk of forest fires, and that forest fires and the poor condition of forests in turn influence climate change.Timeframes are referenced as a way to accuse the government of inaction and lack of preparation.In the Bundestag, the issue was raised more often in the context of climate change, which helps explain why the problem is viewed through a long-term lens more often than in the regional parliament, where the issue comes up mainly in debates about forest management or disaster prevention.

Attribution of roles, responsibility and plots
Overall, forests are characterized as both victim and hero in the state and federal parliament.For example, forests are described as 'sick' (CDU/19137: 26) and 'in need of therapy ' (AfD/19137: 20), but also praised as 'recreational area, […] and an important source of income' (SPD/6/74: 101).Ecosystem functions provided by the forest are readily enumerated by political speakers.While in the context of climate change the role of forests as heroes that mitigate climate change is prominent, the discourse is still dominated by the victimization of the suffering forest.
Much discussion revolves around the responsibilities and roles of forest owners.Most speakers agree that forest owners and foresters are heroes for maintaining the state of the forest, creating 'beauty' (CDU/19224: 216) and thereby preventing forest fires.Some politicians consider it to be particularly unfair that 'those whose forests actually store CO 2 , the forest owners, are now being expropriated over rising temperatures ' (FDP/19115: 75).Following this rationale forest owners and foresters should be beneficiaries of policymaking, as they are affected financially by the damage described and are therefore also seen as victims.Especially at the federal level, politicians on both sides present themselves as allies of the forest and forest owners, supporting them both financially.Forest owners are also viewed as allies of politicians in mitigating the problem by maintaining forest resilience to fire, although some representatives from the CDU/CSU and FDP (and occasionally the SPD) emphasize this more, and the Greens generally less.
Similarly, firefighters and voluntary helpers are praised as heroes and allies that 'deserve our highest recognition' (G/7/9: 32) especially at the regional level.
Furthermore, responsibility is imposed on the policymakers themselves, especially by the opposition, which portrays the governing parties as uncaring, creating a 'spectacle' or 'hot air' (G/19115: 81), or acting 'only after the disaster had occurred' (CDU/6/81: 9), and reminds the government of its duties.Wrong-doing is usually seen as a result of structural conditions, but sometimes representatives are accused of intentional harm.Generally, policymakers see their primary responsibilities as providing money and supporting emergency organizations and forest owners.

Policy solutions based on underlying belief sets
While the general description of the setting is consistent, differing character attribution and plot descriptions lead to different morals to the story and hence policy proposals.A closer look into character and plot use reveals two overarching yet conflicting belief sets, initiating two contrasting narratives which differ mainly in their timeframe and level of human involvement: one human-centered and one naturebased (see figure 4).These different underlying belief sets were revealed from the analysis of characters' responsibilities and are further conveyed using differing plots.Figure 4 illustrates how setting description, character attribution, plot type and policy solutions generally differ in the two narratives.
The human-centered narrative reflects the belief set that forests require human support and that worsening forest conditions and increasing fire risks can be mitigated by more intensive forest management.The nature-based narrative calls for more regulations in forest management to protect the forest, in the belief that the forest recovers best by itself.These two contrasting narratives buttress differing policy proposals to mitigate forest fire risk (see figure 4).
Party affiliation and the speaker's position in parliament seem to influence which narrative is used.The moral of the story that forest management is an appropriate policy approach to minimizing forest fires and addressing forests' ecological degradation is prevalent at the federal level, and opinions differ on how active this management should be, with CDU/CSU and FDP politicians tending to favor increased human involvement and the Greens aiming to strengthen natural processes (cf figure 4).
For example, CDU/CSU speakers argue that sustainable forest management is inevitable to achieve the climate goals (CDU/19176: 30).The climatological benefit is justified by stating that 'young managed mixed forests are the best CO 2 reservoir' (CDU/19224: 180).The FDP agrees that 'actively managed forests demonstrably bind more CO 2 , especially when wood is used as a building material' (FDP/19137: 16).Hence, it is concluded that to maintain the forest's function as 'number one climate protector, we must support forest managers' (CDU/19176: 21), especially as '[m]any private forest owners, […] manage their forests in an exemplary manner and thus contribute to supporting the multiple functions of the forest' (FDP/19137: 22).This is put in strong contrast to leaving the forest to its natural processes, by limiting human influence: For example, a CDU/CSU speaker stresses that 'the German forest only stands for sustainability if it is managed and not set aside' (CDU/19176: 110).
The opposing approach is to advance forest restoration by asking for increased protection of forests 'that are untouched and provide real climate protection' (nA/19176: 31, see also GR/19115: 72).This nature-based narrative aims 'to put ecosystem services at the center of our discussion in politics' (GR/19137: 25).For some speakers, this ecosystem service appreciation goes hand in hand with more appreciation for forest owners as well (AfD/19224: 180), which again takes a human-centered turn.For others, it is more about a general acknowledgment of systems interconnectedness (LN/19178: 58) and strengthening natural processes such as natural rejuvenation instead of 'panic afforestation attacks with miracle tree species that do not even exist' (GR/19115: 82).

Strategic justification of policy solutions
To legitimize the need for certain actions identified in proposals, policymakers use different narrative plots and strategies (Gadinger and Yildiz 2017, Jones 2018, Shanahan et al 2018).For example, governing party representatives legitimize their past policy measures and future proposals by telling stories of success and control, often using containment strategies.In contrast, opposition members commonly use expansion strategies combined with stories of decline or stymied progress to present the governing coalition as incapable of addressing the problem and to underline the need to adopt their own proposals.
Overall, politicians only rarely refer to scientific evidence to justify their narratives.The little scientific evidence used mostly sets the stage for the policy proposals in the setting or plot part of the narrative.It was mainly used by governing parties.Oftentimes, numbers and percentages are referred to without source.Scientific evidence is rarely used as a matter of fact and more prominently given to emphasize a speaker's own statement.Less frequently, politicians use scientific evidence to refute the opposition's statement, e.g. by reasoning that another speaker's claim 'lacks any scientific basis' (CDU/19110: 88).
Plot and strategy choices as well as the overarching narratives influence and justify policymaking on forest fire management.For instance, the nature-based narrative supports the safeguarding of forest ecosystems while the human-centered one argues for sustaining or increasing management.A human-centered narrative that focuses primarily on heroizing forest owners, foresters, and emergency responders justifies supporting them financially with minimal regulations, and typically views active forest management as the key solution.The nature-centered narrative on the other hand backs calls by the Greens to put more effort into natural rejuvenation and to reduce the economic exploitation of forests, while stressing that money is not the sole solution.

Discussion
The findings suggest that while setting and character introduction provide a basis for initiating a plot, the plotting and strategy elements of different narratives are used to support speakers' approaches to forest fire management.Hence, narratives are an important policymaking tool in risk-based contexts like forest fire management.

Theoretical implications
Previous social science research on forest fire management mostly focused on preparedness and decisionmaking strategies of firefighters, public perceptions of risk, or media reporting of forest fires (Weick et al 2005, McCaffrey et al 2013, 2020, Prior and Eriksen 2013, Groff 2021).The political aspect has been comparatively understudied, while the influence of different policy narratives on forest fire management strategies has been the subject of even less attention.This study closes that gap.
In comparison to previous narrative analyses concluding that different descriptions of the policy problem led to different morals to the story, the consensus we found in the setting description has been rare (Jones 2018).In risk and disaster policymaking, such as on forest fire management, the focus lies more on character and responsibility attribution and the problem's temporal and spatial extent.The importance of paying attention to timing and character attribution when applying the NPF to the disaster context has previously been identified by Crow et al (2017).Our research further supports previous findings that narratives have a performative function and can influence political decision-making by classifying and legitimizing possible policy approaches based on underlying belief sets (Gadinger and Yildiz 2017, Jones 2018, Shanahan et al 2018).

The forest's ambiguous role as hero and victim, and the forest fire as villain
A comparison of newspaper articles between 2001 and 2009 found that many German media outlets' reporting of forests as climate saviors and heroes in the battle against global warming evolved in a few years to presenting forests more as victims of climate change (Biller 2011).Similar to Biller's study, the plenary speakers examined in our analysis agreed that forests are victims of forest fires, but heroes as well as victims in the context of climate change.In our case, the forest was increasingly portrayed as a victim of forest fires, and a hero only when related to climate change.Thus, the analysis shows that context influences characterization.Moreover, the hero portrayal served to stress the urgency and rationale for saving the suffering forest.This again illustrates the influence of character attributions and descriptions on the problem-solving approach (cf Jones 2014, Merry 2016, Shanahan et al 2019).As found in previous studies, images of battle or monsters serve as a call to arms for suppressing fire (Paveglio et al 2011, Wilke 2016, Matlock et al 2017).This proves that exclusion of emotions from policymaking is neither possible, nor always intended (Schaal 2009).

Prevalent human-centered management approach
Our analysis helped to reveal the underlying belief sets and reasoning for the trending human-centered management approach.The perception of forest fires as monsters and invaders feeds the human-centered narrative of necessary human management of fires and forests.The tendency to a more human-centered management narrative originates in the long-term evolution of forest use in Germany (Borrass et al 2017), and current policy continues trying to prevent forest fires through effective management.In Spain, researchers have found a similar trend of more awareness of human landscape management in response to wildfires (Castelló and Montagut 2019).Castelló and Montagut (2019) argue that media reporting on wildfires in Spain has taken a turn from a romantic view of nature to a pragmatic one that focuses more on managing the environment, suggesting that generally in Europe the assumption prevails and is further nurtured that forest fires can only be prevented and controlled by increased human influence.This is also evident in the results of policy proposals discussed by politicians in their speeches before the final vote on the proposals.Proposals that focused more on human intervention in forest management prevailed more often than proposals that focused more on strengthening ecosystem processes and limiting economic forest use.For example, in December 2019, the policy proposal 'Our Forest Needs Help' was adopted in the German Bundestag, which underscored the human-centered narrative that natural processes alone do not improve forest resilience to fire, but human influence does, while the proposal 'Preserving Forests through Effective Forest Protection' which can be traced back to a naturebased narrative, was not successful (see appendix).However, the analysis of the final political outcomes also shows that, in general, the proposals of the coalition parties were always accepted and those of the opposition rejected (see appendix).
In practice, this means that other solutions, such as a more nature-based approach, do not have the support needed for a less suppressive but more adaptive and preventative approach to forest fire management, although recent research suggests shifting focus from suppressive control to more pragmatic mitigation and prevention (Moreira et al 2020).Despite previous studies pointing to the worth of exploiting nature's resilience and suggesting that (controlled) fire can have a positive impact on ecosystem regeneration (Marcolin et al 2019, Moreira et al 2020), most policymakers still focus on strengthening human control strategies.However, which strategy can best reinforce forests' resilience while also protecting people from fire depends on local conditions (McWethy et al 2019).
Perhaps the nature-based approach is currently less widespread because it builds on the description of an on-going problem occurring over a longer timeframe.Urgent and immediate problems, however, seem to be solvable by short-term measures and therefore appear easier to address.However, it is also very much about the concept of nature or the underlying understanding of ecosystems.Here it plays a central role whether the decision-makers are advised by scientists with a forestry-related or ecosystembased background.The differences also result from a rather conservative set of values, which often seems to be opposed to a socio-ecological one.Further research should focus on these two opposing narratives and how they can be combined for constructive policymaking.

Practical implications
As policy narratives interplay with social narratives, setting, character and responsibility attribution have shown to affect the narrative's moral, and thus policy proposals and subsequent decision-making on disaster and forest ecosystem management.Our research reinforces previous findings that narratives and their underlying belief sets frame policymaking (cf Jones 2014, Crow et al 2017, Lawlor and Crow 2018, Knackmuhs et al 2019, Shanahan et al 2019).This has implications for practice: politicians aware of underlying belief sets can thus communicate more clearly and purposefully.Agreeing on a common narrative for the policy issue of forest fires could make political decision-making swifter and more effective.
Policymaking in turn affects forest fire management by influencing the organizational structure and resources.For those who work with forests or in emergency organizations fighting fires, the awareness of policy narratives and underlying belief sets means they can use the power of narratives to convince politicians of their true needs by telling the right stories.A narrative that goes from battling a monsterlike villain to managing a natural phenomenon and possibly even harnessing its benefits would shift disaster management from being reactive to proactive (Moreira et al 2020), thereby helping efforts to mitigate climate change.

Methodological implications
The study adds new findings on the qualitative use of the NPF as a methodology by applying it to complex policy issues.It suggests that, with complex problems, analyzing the description of settings might be less relevant, whereas studying causal factors and characters' roles-and hence the attribution of responsibilitiesbecomes key to identifying underlying belief sets and rationales for policy approaches.This study argues the value of applying the NPF to complex risk-related cases and suggests more methodology-oriented work on qualitatively using the NPF to improve clarity and transferability.

Limitations
Although aiming for a systematic coding approach and using a codebook, coding is always influenced by the researcher's personal frame of reference, so achieving complete objectivity is impossible (Kuckartz 2018).Furthermore, speeches in the plenary debate are also a performative and manipulative act (van Dijk 2006).As this work is just a case study and relied exclusively on narrowly defined narratives, the authors have not discussed power relations (such as politicians' varying rhetorical skills or the allocation of speaking time).A mixed method approach including the study of power relations could offer more insights into these and other themes, supplementing this research.

Conclusion
Our study examined and emphasized the role of policy narratives in German forest fire management.The analysis of forest fire narratives shows how narratives are shaped by beliefs and that they influence proposals for action based on characterizations, plots, and descriptions of problems.We highlighted the importance of language, emotion and contextualization in policymaking and argue that researchers as well as practitioners should pay more attention to underlying narratives.Policy narratives construct political realities and the deliberate use of political narratives allows skillful practitioners to influence policymaking and subsequent management structures.Scientific evidence is of secondary importance in legitimizing policy proposals on forest fire management, while the attribution of responsibility and the timeframe of the setting matter a lot.Hence, the way stories are told affects later practices such as forest fire or forest management by influencing, classifying, and sorting perceptions of the threat and possible solutions, thus framing the scope of action.We therefore urge future researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to consider how policy narratives shape climate-related, environmental, and civil protection policy realities and thereby policymaking and their subsequent influence on disaster management and society.

Appendix I: Codebook
All coding of the material was based on a structured codebook, derived deductively from previous narrative policy studies and inductively from the material at hand until saturation (figures 2 and 3).Categories derived deductively from the Narrative Policy Framework have references to original NPF studies explaining the code, or focusing on its relevance in their analyses.Some of these codes may have subcodes derived inductively.The problem is framed as part of an on-going crisis, not just a recent incident.
Code when it is said that the problem has existed or will persist for several years.

Moral (policy solution)
The moral of the narrative and a solution to the problem is proposed (policy solution) (Jones 2018).All following codes were taken from the material deductively.

Systemic changes on all levels
To The following codes as well as the structural variables have no code definitions, follow all the same coding rules and need no anchor examples, as they are deemed self-explanatory and rather aimed to be used for further reference and details on the setting and the structural variables.They were all taken from the material inductively.

II: Speech list
The following two lists present all documents and speeches that were coded, first in the German federal parliament (Bundestag) and then in the Brandenburg state parliament (Landtag).For further information the overarching topic of the debate, party affiliation and page numbers, and the cited pages are listed.The speeches are sorted by year and date and name the speakers whose talks were coded.Furthermore, the list shows the total amount of overall codes given in each document and to how many they amount in the year.If a specific motion was discussed, the list indicates if it was adopted or rejected.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Research steps when conducting a category-guided content analysis.(Own depiction and translation adapted with permission from Kuckartz (2018), p 100).

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Code system, based on the NPF's narrative elements with inductive additions.(Own depiction).

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Narratives of forest fire management strategies differ in terms of beliefs about the benefits or drawbacks of human involvement and assessments of temporality in the setting.(Own depiction).
only around the sentence in which the word 'forest fire' appears)

Table 1 .
Quality assessment of the material.
Achieved through key word search & further in-depth selection steps Origin of the document Federal level: DIP (www.dip.bundestag.de)State level: ELVIS (www.parlamentsdokumentation.brandenburg.de/starweb/LBB/ELVIS)

Table 2 .
Distribution of coded speeches by party and position.

Categories derived deductively from the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) Narrative form (elements)
Details on the policy problem showing interactions between characters and settings and giving possible reasons for the current state (Stone 2011: 168, Gadinger and Yildiz 2017: 161) Causal mechanisms are indicating the source of the problem/reasons for the current state (Stone 2011, Shanahan et al 2013) The summer of 2019 has barely begun and the situation is already reminiscent of the forest fire year 2018; at least the number of forest fires is in these dimensions.That's why many people of Brandenburg are naturally asking: 'Is this now normality?Is this the state of the future, that as soon as summer comes, the drought is there?'[…]If we do not do anything, in 20 years these hot summers-like 2018 and before-will be normal summers, because temperatures-at least according to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research-will continue to rise.That's why we have to do something in Europe, in Germany and thus in Brandenburg, because the development can no longer be reversed, it can at most be stopped.(PlPr_LT\190613_6/81: 8: 2372-8: 3652) We are talking about forest protection, after all.I will tell you one thing: it is no use having your picture taken with trees if they are being cut down behind the scenes.[…] Mrs. Merkel was quite touched that Greta Thunberg called on humanity to unite behind science.Well, in this sense, let us let a scientist have the last word.Mr. Mojib Latif said about your climate package: This is euthanasia for the world climate.(2019\19115_26_09_19: 72: 0-72: 2606) But climate change is hitting Germany and Thuringia much harder than expected, and now, in what is probably the third year of drought, the Minister of Agriculture is once again offering farmers only drought aid.The forest farmers are to be fobbed off with crumbs for damaged wood processing and some forest conversion.That is far too little, says Die Linke.(2020\19158_070520: 144: 711-144: 1090) Causal mechanisms We want to get to work soon with a first model project.To do this, we need more fire protection units.We need fixed units that support the fire departments on site, as in the U.S. in the event of major incidents.This is not about working against each other, but about blue, white and red emergency forces working together.Narrative strategies → used to manipulate/control policy processes(Shanahan et al 2018) That, too, must give us pause for thought.There, too, we must be prepared to help.More training is needed, and more money is also needed in this area.(2019\19115_26_09_19:86:1690-86:1848)Wehave to do something in the forest, we have to get the 1 million solid cubic meters of damaged wood out of the forest, and we have to fight the bark beetle.(2019\19115_26_09_19:73:3748-73: 3898)(Continued.)

Combat drought, make state and cities resilient, invest in climate protection, Drs. 19/18961 (Motion: B90/The Greens)
Motion of the governing coalition 'Sustainable protection of climate and environment,' Drs.19/22506 adopted.