No abstract

No abstract

A large body of research focuses on identifying patterns of human populations most at risk from hazards and the factors that help explain performance of mitigations that can help reduce that risk. One common concept in such studies is social vulnerability-human populations' potential exposure to, sensitivity from and ability to reduce negative impacts from a hazard. While there is growing interest in social vulnerability for wildfire, few studies have critically evaluated the characteristics that scholars often indicate influence social vulnerability to that hazard. This research utilizes surveys, wildfire simulations, and GIS data to test the relationships between select demographic, perceptual and parcel characteristics of property owners against empirically simulated metrics for wildfire exposure or wildfire-related damages and their performance of mitigation actions. Our results from Flathead County, MT, USA, suggest that parcel characteristics such as property value, building value, and the year structures were built explaining a significant amount of the variance in elements of social vulnerability. Demographic characteristics commonly used in social vulnerability analysis did not have significant relationships with measures of wildfire exposure or vulnerability. Part-time or full-time residency, age, perceived property risk, and year of development were among the few significant determinants of residents' performance of fuel reduction mitigations, although the significance of these factors varied across the levels of fuel reduction performed by homeowners. We use these and other results to argue for a renewed focus on the finer-scale characteristics that expose some populations to wildfire risk more than others.

Fire use is increasingly recognised as a central component of integrated land management in fire-prone places. Historically, fire use has been commonplace in many places in Ireland, where field burning is an established practice with a long pedigree among upland farmers seeking to improving forage among other benefits. This practice has been subject to controversy as wildfires – a hazard often associated with upland burning practice – continue to gain public attention and concern. This research seeks to understand the practice of field burning from the viewpoint of practitioners themselves through focus groups with upland burners conducted in a variety of locations across Ireland. Discussions focused on the history of field burning, reasons for its use, and how knowledge of the techniques involved in burning has been passed down through generations. The narrative that emerges is that of a critical livelihood-supporting practice steeped in social and ecological value but threatened by stringent regulation and shifting public opinion. We suggest that one way to preserve this practice may be to establish more formal linkages between fire use practitioners and Ireland’s fire services, public land managers and regulators to promote appropriate use of traditional fire within modern legal and best practice frameworks.

No abstract