Sarah McCaffrey

Thinking of Wildfire as a Natural Hazard

Natural hazards theory with its emphasis on understanding the human–hazard interaction has much to offer in better understanding how individuals respond to the wildfire hazard. Ironically, very few natural hazards studies have actually looked at wildfires, despite the insights the field might offer. This report is structured around four interrelated questions that are often heard from individuals involved with wildfire management. Examining these four items through the natural hazards lens can demonstrate just a few of the ways the field can help us think more clearly about individual response to risk and how to increase participation in fire mitigation and support for fire management practices.

Social science research related to wildfire management: an overview of recent findings and future research needs

As with other aspects of natural-resource management, the approach to managing wildland fires has evolved over time as scientific understanding has advanced and the broader context surrounding management decisions has changed. Prior to 2000 the primary focus of most fire research was on the physical and ecological aspects of fire; social science research was limited to a small number of studies. However, as more people moved into fire-prone areas interest grew in understanding relevant social dynamics. This growing interest was supported by increased funding for fire research overall with the creation of the Joint Fire Science Program in 1998 and the National Fire Plan in 2000. In subsequent years,a significant bodyof researchhasdeveloped on the humandimensionsof wildland firecoveringdiverse topics including: attitudes towards pre-fire mitigation, social acceptability of fire and fuels management, community preparedness, public response during fires, citizen-agency communications and post-fire recovery. This paper reports on twoaspectsofaJointFireScienceProgramprojectintendedtotakestockofthekeysocialsciencelessonsprovidedtodate: a basic review of findings in the non-economic fire social science literature and identification of future research needs.

Best practices in risk and crisis communication: Implications for natural hazards management

As societies evolve, often the most appropriate response to the hazard must also evolve. However, such shifts in appropriate response to a hazard, whether at the individual or at the societal level, are rarely straightforward: Closing the gap between desired practice and current practice requires effective communication. Although there is a significant literature on how to encourage adaptation before an event and how to communicate during an event, there is less work tying the two together or on how to communicate shifts in larger scale societal response to a natural hazard. In this article, we bring together the best practices and theoretical literature from risk communication and crisis communication and empirical literature on wildfire communication to derive the key characteristics associated with best communication practices. We then use this framework on three case studies of wildfires in California, Montana, and Wyoming, each of which used a different strategy for managing the fire, to understand whether approaching communication more holistically can lead to more desired natural hazard management outcomes. Our working hypothesis was as follows: effective communication before and during a fire would be associated with acceptance of more flexible fire management strategies. The findings indicate how a type of desired management change (more flexible fire management) is associated with more effective communication practices before and during the event.

Public perspectives of fire, fuels and the Forest Service in the Great Lakes Region: a survey of citizen-agency communication and trust.

Relative to the western United States, where fire and fuel management programs have received greater emphasis, few community-based studies have focused on the Great Lakes region. The present paper describes public opinion research from counties surrounding National Forests in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan. Survey data address citizen perspectives on (1) fuel reduction practices and related risks, (2) confidence in the US Forest Service to effectively implement treatments, and (3) interactions between the agency and forest communities. Substantial support for prescribed fire and thinning treatments is evident, with few participants believing these practices should not be considered or are unnecessary. However, ratings of agency actions were weak at all three study sites; in particular, there is some skepticism that managers can safely implement prescribed fire programs. Overall, Minnesota residents had fewer concerns whereas Michigan respondents were more cautious. These results are discussed and compared with findings from the western US.

Reducing fuels in the wildland–urban interface: community perceptions of agency fuels treatments

Wildland fires and resulting effects have increased in recent years. Efforts are under way nationwide to proactively manage vegetative conditions to reduce the threat of wildland fires. Public support is critical to the successful implementation of fuels reduction programs, particularly at the wildland–urban interface. This study examines public acceptance of fuels treatments and influencing factors in five neighbourhoods in Oregon and Utah located adjacent to public lands. Support for treatment use was high across locations. Findings suggest citizen trust in agency managers to successfully implement treatment activities is particularly influential on treatment acceptance. Thus, building and maintaining trust with local citizens is an essential element in the successful implementation of fuel management programs.

The public and wildland fire management: social science findings for managers

Presents key social science findings from three National Fire Plan-sponsored research projects. Articles highlight information of likely interest to individuals working to decrease wildfire hazards on both private and public lands. Three general topic areas are addressed: (1) public views and acceptance of fuels management, (2) working with homeowners and communities, and (3) tools that can help us understand social issues.

Collaborative implementation for ecological restoration on US public lands: implications for legal context, accountability, and adaptive management

The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP), established in 2009, encourages collaborative landscape scale ecosystem restoration efforts on United States Forest Service (USFS) lands. Although the USFS employees have experience engaging in collaborative planning, CFLRP requires collaboration in implementation, a domain where little prior experience can be drawn on for guidance. The purpose of this research is to identify the ways in which CFLRP’s collaborative participants and agency personnel conceptualize how stakeholders can contribute to implementation on landscape scale restoration projects, and to build theory on dynamics of collaborative implementation in environmental management. This research uses a grounded theory methodology to explore collaborative implementation from the perspectives and experiences of participants in landscapes selected as part of the CFLRP in 2010. Interviewees characterized collaborative implementation as encompassing three different types of activities: prioritization, enhancing treatments, and multiparty monitoring. The paper describes examples of activities in each of these categories and then identifies ways in which collaborative implementation in the context of CFLRP (1) is both hindered and enabled by overlapping legal mandates about agency collaboration, (2) creates opportunities for expanded accountability through informal and relational means, and, (3) creates feedback loops at multiple temporal and spatial scales through which monitoring information, prioritization, and implementation actions shape restoration work both within and across projects throughout the landscape creating more robust opportunities for adaptive management.

Wildfire evacuation and its alternatives: perspectives from four United States’ communities

Recent years have seen growing interest within the United States fire management community in exploring alternatives to the standard approach of evacuating entire populations that are threatened by a wildfire. There has been particular interest in what can be learned from the Australian approach, whereby residents choose whether or not to evacuate under the ‘prepare, stay and defend or leave early’ approach, also called Stay or Go. Given these developments, it is useful to understand what elements are taken into consideration by those who would be most affected by a new approach when they think through the pros and cons of mass evacuation v. an alternative strategy should a wildfire occur. This paper reports on findings from interviews in four communities in the United States where some alternative to mass evacuation during a wildfire was being considered. In each community, emergency responders and community members were asked for their perspective on the pros and cons of evacuation and the alternative being considered. The results show that opinions were mixed on whether evacuation or an alternative approach was more appropriate. Individuals who were primarily thinking of improving safety and reducing uncertainty for emergency responders tended to think mass evacuation was the best approach, whereas those who were primarily thinking of increasing safety and reducing uncertainty for homeowners were more likely to think that alternative responses were a valid option. These findings demonstrate the complicated nature of developing evacuation strategies that are beneficial to all parties involved.

Different interest group views of fuels treatments: survey results from fire and fire surrogate treatments in a Sierran mixed conifer forest, California, USA

The present paper discusses results from a survey about the acceptance of and preferences for fuels treatments of participants following a field tour of the University of California Blodgett Forest Fire and Fire Surrogate Study Site. Although original expectations were that tours would be composed of general members of the public, individual tour groups ultimately were much more specialised, with tours made up of individuals from five distinct groups including foresters, environmentalists, entomologists, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, teachers, and high school or undergraduate students. This proved fortuitous as most studies of ‘public’ perceptions to date have been of general members of the public and little work has been done assessing the views of groups who may have more specific knowledge or interest in fuels treatments. Such assessment is perhaps long overdue given the importance of understanding characteristics of different audience segments in developing effective outreach programs. Analysis showed that group membership was in fact the key element in differences in survey responses with significant differences found between groups on overall acceptability of treatments, treatment preferences based on different land ownership and management types, and which variables were most important in determining treatment preferences.

Public Acceptance of Wildland Fire and Fuel Management: Panel Responses in Seven Locations

AbstractWildland fire affects both public and private resources throughout the United States. A century of fire suppression has contributed to changing ecological conditions and accumulated fuel loads. Managers have used a variety of approaches to address these conditions and reduce the likelihood of wildland fires that may result in adverse ecological impacts and threaten communities. Public acceptance is a critical component of developing and implementing successful management programs. This study examines the factors that influence citizen support for agency fuel reduction treatments over time—particularly prescribed fire and mechanical vegetation removal. This paper presents findings from a longitudinal study examining resident beliefs and attitudes regarding fire management and fuels treatments in seven states: Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, Utah, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The study was implemented in two phases over a 6-year period using mail surveys to residents of communities adjacent to federal lands in each location. Questions replicated measures from the original project as well as some new items to allow a more in-depth analysis of key concepts. The study design enables comparisons over time as well as between locations. We also assess the factors that influence acceptance of both prescribed fire and mechanical vegetation removal. Findings demonstrate a relative stability of attitudes toward fuels management approaches over time and suggest that this acceptance is strongly influenced by confidence in resource managers and beliefs that the treatments would result in positive outcomes.