ABSTRACT. Fire-prone landscapes are not well studied as coupled human and natural systems (CHANS) and present many challenges for understanding and promoting adaptive behaviors and institutions. Here, we explore how heterogeneity, feedbacks, and external drivers in this type of natural hazard system can lead to complexity and can limit the development of more adaptive approaches to policy and management. Institutions and social networks can counter these limitations and promote adaptation. We also develop a conceptual model that includes a robust characterization of social subsystems for a fire-prone landscape in Oregon and describe how we are building an agent-based model to promote understanding of this social-ecological system. Our agent-based model, which incorporates existing ecological models of vegetation and fire and is based on empirical studies of landowner decision-making, will be used to explore alternative management and fire scenarios with land managers and various public entities. We expect that the development of CHANS frameworks and the application of a simulation model in a collaborative setting will facilitate the development of more effective policies and practices for fire-prone landscapes.
Wildfire risk in temperate forests has become a nearly intractable problem that can be characterized as a socioecological “pathology”: that is, a set of complex and problematic interactions among social and ecological systems across multiple spatial and temporal scales. Assessments of wildfire risk could benefit from recognizing and accounting for these interactions in terms of socioecological systems, also known as coupled natural and human systems (CNHS). We characterize the primary social and ecological dimensions of the wildfire risk pathology, paying particular attention to the governance system around wildfire risk, and suggest strategies to mitigate the pathology through innovative planning approaches, analytical tools, and policies. We caution that even with a clear understanding of the problem and possible solutions, the system by which human actors govern fire‐prone forests may evolve incrementally in imperfect ways and can be expected to resist change even as we learn better ways to manage CNHS.
Wildland fire and associated management efforts are dominant topics in natural resource fields. Smoke from fires can be a nuisance and pose serious health risks and aggravate pre-existing health conditions. When it results in reduced visibility near roadways, smoke can also pose hazardous driving conditions and reduce the scenic value of vistas. Communicating about smoke, whether in the preparation phases before a planned burn or during a wildfire event, can enable those at risk to make informed decisions to minimize their exposure to smoke or choose alternate activities that mitigate smoke completely. To date, very little research has been completed on the social aspects of smoke, such as communication or public perceptions. Here, we present findings from an exploratory study that examined challenges and opportunities related to communication (within agencies or to the public) for management of smoke from wildland fires. Interviews were conducted in California, Oregon, Montana, and South Carolina among a purposive sample of individuals, who are involved in fire or smoke management. Findings indicate that smoke poses several challenges to management agencies. Findings also provide insight into potential strategies to address such challenges by improving communication in both inter- and intra-agency situations as well as with members of the public. In particular, prioritizing fire and smoke-related communication within agencies, allocating agency resources specifically for training in communication and outreach endeavors, taking advantage of existing resources including informal social networks among the public, and building long-term relationships both between agencies and with the public were viewed as effective.
As part of a Joint Fire Science Program project, a team of social scientists reviewed existing fire social science literature to develop a targeted synthesis of scientific knowledge on the following questions: 1. What is the public's understanding of fire's role in the ecosystem? 2. Who are trusted sources of information about fire? 3. What are the public's views of fuels reduction methods, and how do those views vary depending on citizens' location in the wildland-urban interface or elsewhere? 4. What is the public's understanding of smoke effects on human health, and what shapes the public's tolerance for smoke? 5. What are homeowners' views of their responsibilities for home and property protection and mitigation, e.g., defensible space measures? 6. What role does human health and safety play in the public's perceptions of fire and fire management? 7. What are the public's views on the role and importance of costs in wildfire incident response decisions? 8. To the extent that information is available, how do findings differ among ethnic and cultural groups, and across regions of the country?Despite limited fire research specific to the questions on costs, and human health and safety, common findings on all these interrelated topics are summarized in this document. Research has found that the public has a fairly sophisticated understanding of fire's ecological role and the environmental factors that can increase fire risk. The public obtains information on fire from a wide variety of sources, but findings consistently show that interactive information sources are both generally preferred and more effective than unidirectional sources. As a way to improve ecosystem health and reduce fire risk, active land management generally has greater citizen support than a no-action alternative. Most respondents accept the practice of prescribed fire for active forest management and tolerate the accompanying smoke; in contrast, smoke is a highly salient issue for households with health concerns. The public tends to see mitigating the fire risk as a shared responsibility with landowners, whether public or private, responsible for taking appropriate action on their own property. Cost figures in to citizens' decisionmaking about actions to protect property before a wildfire but may be less of a priority during incident response. Except for ethnicity or race, little evidence was found of meaningful variation in public response to fire management based on socio-demographic characteristics or geographic variation.
Wildfires have increased in number and size in recent years, making post-fire forest management an increasingly important topic. Citizen–agency interactions, citizen trust, and citizen acceptance of management strategies are central to successful planning and decision-making in these settings. In this study, citizen opinions from the attentive public are evaluated in two locations near recent fires in Oregon: the 2003 Bear and Booth Complex Fires and the 2002 Biscuit Fire. Results suggest an agency’s commitment to long-term interactions with citizens influences citizen trust in the agencies and acceptance of post-fire management strategies. There is broad acceptance for several post-fire management strategies (i.e. erosion control, replanting, reseeding). However, acceptance is highly dependent on trustworthy relations. Further, results suggest it is not enough to simply offer opportunities for public engagement; citizens need to feel that these activities were meaningful opportunities to participate. Although results differed between locations, overall the majority of respondents did not agree with how the local Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management handled forest planning after recent fires. Findings from this research indicate that positive citizen–agency relations need to be long-term and developed well before a fire occurs if post-fire actions are to be supported by communities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.