“Us versus Them;” Local Social Fragmentation and Its Potential Effects on Building Pathways to Adapting to Wildfire

Abstract

As the need for wildfire adaptation for human populations in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) intensifies in the face of changes that have increased the number of wildfires that exceed 100 thousand acres, it is becoming more important to come to a better understanding of social complexity on the WUI landscape. It is just as important to further our understanding of the social characteristics of the individual human settlements that inhabit that landscape and attempt to craft strategies to improve wildfire adaptation that are commensurate with local values, management preferences, and local capabilities. The case study research presented in this article evaluates social characteristics present in a WUI community that faces extreme wildfire risk to both people and property. It explores social processes that impede the ability of community members to work together collectively to solve problems (e.g., wildfire risk) and offers an alternative perspective about the nature of residency status (i.e., full-time and non-full-time) and its role in influencing wildfire mitigation efforts. This article closes with recommendations intended to facilitate collective action and foster community development.

Exploring support and opposition to regulatory approaches for wildfire risk management: requirements, voluntary actions, and tailored local action

“…Comparing across our results suggests that the most supported strategy among residents in our sample may be to support the establishment of local, tax funded districts who help encourage voluntary mitigations and adapt additional wildfire mitigation programs that are tailored to smaller areas. However, that potential "pathway" for fire adaptation is a compromise between seemingly divergent views among population segments inhabiting the study area, and whose differences of opinion about future wildfire management may be the most complex barrier to overcome in the region (see Paveglio 2019b, Billings et al 2021b or Paveglio 2021 for related discussions). Consider, for instance, the negative correlation we observed between support for future shared mitigations (i.e., taxes and local districts) and HIZ performance.…”

“…(2) trust in agency or wildfire professionals; (3) demographic characteristics such as age, income, education or retirement status; and (4) perceptions about the role of fire in the broader landscape (e.g., as a natural, healthy disturbance or a damaging hazard in need of suppression) (McCaffrey 2015;Hessln 2018;Billings et al 2021b;Cowan and Kennedy 2023). However, those same factors also can be inconsistent across populations and regions, or in the case of demographics, display mixed utility as indicators of more elaborate and interacting influences that are contextually specific.…”