Extreme events and climate change: the post-disaster dynamics of forest fires and forest storms in Sweden

Abstract

How are extreme events understood in the forest sector? What are the implications of forest professionals' understandings and evaluations of extreme events? These questions are central to this study, which analyses the handling of the largest forest storm and the largest forest fire in modern Swedish history. The theoretical approach is that of risk governance in practice, which stresses that understanding the framings, practices and strategies used by members of professional organizations is pivotal for how disasters are managed. Two interview studies have been conducted with forest professionals involved in the two cases. The analysis shows that there were fundamentally different understandings of the two events and their implications for forestry practice. The storm was seen as an unavoidable natural disaster, but the consequences of future storms were considered possible to mitigate through changed forest practices. The forest fire, on the other hand, was conceptualized as a partly natural and partly man-made disaster, and forestry was seen as having very limited possibilities to reduce the likelihood as well as the consequences of similar events. The different understandings had significant implications for the post-disaster dynamics and for which management practices that were developed. Thus, understanding how extreme events are perceived is crucial to understanding which management practices that emerge in their wake, a topic of growing relevance because climate change is predicted to increase the frequency of forest fires and storms.ARTICLE HISTORY

Wildfires, responsibility and trust: public understanding of Sweden's largest wildfire

“…Learning opportunities are created because a disaster often destabilizes many beliefs and activities that have become routinized and habitual, questioning previous decisions, organizational routines and professional practices (Boin and 't Hart 2007). However, disasters may be framed as unique events, creating the impression that there is little to be learned from them (Lidskog and Sjödin 2016b). From the perspective of the people affected, a crucial question is whether the responsible organizations involved take responsibility for learning from the wildfire, as that learning may also lead to organizational change (e.g.…”

“…Recent research on the social aspects of wildfires has directed attention to risk management (Calkin et al 2014); attitudes toward pre-fire mitigation and adaptation (Lidskog and Sjödin 2016b); management networks, coordination and collaboration (Bergström et al 2016;Bodin and Nohrstedt 2016); community engagement and voluntary involvement in forest fire management (Eckerberg and Buizer 2017;Johansson et al 2018); fire management options (Flannigan et al 2009); forest owners' preparedness (Valente et al 2015); and post-fire recovery and assistance to disaster victims (Holmes 2010;Taylor et al 2014). Studies have also focused on the social and economic impacts on affected communities (Ager et al 2010), local preparedness (Paveglio and Edgeley 2017), community recovery following wildfires (Edgeley and Paveglio 2017), risk perception (Langer and McGee 2017;Velez et al 2017), media coverage (Berglez and Lidskog 2018) and media usage of metaphors (Matlock et al 2017).…”

Invented Communities and Social Vulnerability: The Local Post-Disaster Dynamics of Extreme Environmental Events

“…Crisis is often defined as a threat to fundamental structures or values in society, whereas disaster is seen as a manifestation and materialization of these threats that results in devastating and detrimental consequences [12,13]. Crises may lead to disasters and resources are often mobilized to prevent a crisis from developing into a disaster.…”

In the eye of the storm: adaptation logics of forest owners in management and planning in Swedish areas

“…The outcome of the reforestation work after the storm has been described as a result of path dependence and driven by profitability and lack of alternative management practices (Lidskog and Sjödin 2014;Lodin et al 2017). Both private forest owners (Blennow 2008;Lidskog and Sjödin 2014) and professionals (Lidskog and Sjödin 2016) have framed storms as a natural hazard, which renders their risk unavoidable and adaption measures needless. The lack of control over the effects of storms and other weather-related hazards (Harries 2008;Carroll et al 2009) results in a perception of powerlessness and low self-efficacy, which to some extent limits the grounds for action and realising adaptive capacities (Adger et al 2009).…”