Understanding Social Complexity Within the Wildland–Urban Interface: A New Species of Human Habitation?

Abstract

The lack of knowledge regarding social diversity in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) or an in-depth understanding of the ways people living there interact to address common problems is concerning, perhaps even dangerous, given that community action is necessary for successful wildland fire preparedness and natural resource management activities. In this article, we lay out the knowledge and preliminary case study evidence needed to begin systematically documenting the differing levels and types of adaptive capacity WUI communities have for addressing collective problems such as wildland fire hazard. In order to achieve this end, we draw from two theoretical perspectives encompassing humans' interactions with their environment, including (1) Kenneth Wilkinson's interactional approach to community, (2) and certain elements of place literature. We also present case study research on wildfire protection planning in two drastically different California communities to illustrate how social diversity influences adaptive capacity to deal with hazards such as wildland fire. These perspectives promote an image of the WUI not as a monolithic entity but a complex mosaic of communities with different needs and existing capacities for wildland fire and natural resource management.

Using community archetypes to better understand differential community adaptation to wildfire risk

“…However, close examination of that literature, and especially recent trends, demonstrates a particularly strong bent towards deductive strategies for understanding or predicting individual human behaviour. We suggest a parallel focus on collective behaviour at the community level, which is where there is great potential for innovation and adaptation [27,36,37]. Likewise, there is no shortage of recent efforts to develop a 'bigger picture' of wildfire dynamics and management in various countries or at a global level [4,5,42].…”

“…To that end we suggest that researchers in other regions consider developing a common corpus of local characteristics, dynamics, and influences that past and present researchers have indicated are potentially important contributors to action with regards to wildfire management [37]. A next step is to situate those characteristics within larger conceptual categories that indicate their relative role in terms of local community functioning [27,36,37]. Subsequent work can use this corpus of potential influences to document variance in the types and combination of factors that lead to differential support for or enactment and adaptation of strategies for managing wildfire and the lands potentially impacted by it.…”

“…We recently published a scheme for beginning to classify WUI communities as a way of better understanding how communities with different key characteristics may approach the problem of becoming more fire adapted in different ways [27]. That typology is based on a meta-analysis of 20 years of previously published case studies of fire-prone communities in the US West [24,27,[36][37][38][39]. Corresponding reviews of the wildland fire social science literature, in which these studies were embedded, also found a great deal of variability in the composition of WUI communities and their approaches to dealing with fire risk [27].…”

“…Thus, it follows that a systematic understanding of the key characteristics that differentially influence community adaptation to fire risk is needed [36,37]. The documentation of these key characteristics across communities can help professionals and residents better understand how policies and programmes for managing fire risk can be flexibly adapted to meet the unique needs and benefits sought by a variety of populations.…”

“…While this is being increasingly recognized, it is not well articulated in terms of the strategies for achieving FACs or potential outcomes that guide that goal. That is, the science of wildfire has spent comparably less time attempting to understand the factors that will allow for flexible application of wildfire mitigation policies, programmes and planning for a variety of communities [36,37].…”