Exploring the Influence of Local Social Context on Strategies for Achieving Fire Adapted Communities
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Community Diversity and Responsibility for Wildfire
Linking Community Diversity and Variable Wildfire Adaptation
- Will socially diverse communities display variable support or perceived effectiveness for a variety of commonly advocated programs, approaches, and policies related to wildfire adaptation?
- How can the systematic documentation of diverse local social context help explain support or perceived effectiveness for wildfire adaptation strategies across cases?
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Site Selection and Participant Recruitment
3.2. Participant Recruitment and Data Collection
During the following questions I want to ask you about the effectiveness of different strategies for promoting effective wildfire adaptation in this area. That is, what strategies are most likely to work well, or have worked well in this area for improving wildfire response? When I say effective, I mean those things that will be both (1) useful in reducing wildfire risk to this area; AND (2) which will be supported by or carried out by people in this area. If a given approach is already being implemented here, please assess its effectiveness in reducing wildfire risk. If usefulness and local support or adoption are at odds for any given strategy, I would like to talk about that more.
3.3. Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Quantitative Rankings of Adaptation Actions
4.2. Qualitative Discussion of Local Context and Fire Adaptation
I’ve been here 25 years. One of the major hurdles that personally I have seen over those years (for fire management) is that you have to understand the dynamics of what makes up the resident population here.
4.2.1. Variance in Support for Wildfire Mitigation Regulations
Yeah, I don’t think people need to be babied because they’re beyond that, but at the same time it’s, look, we’re not looking for mandates, we’re looking for a way to improve things around here so that people don’t get hurt, animals don’t get hurt.
But actual enforcement of CC&Rs (codes, covenants, and restrictions), the one that I have been involved with, we’ve had very little success in trying to enforce CC&Rs. And the state, threw out our ability to even fine people, because we couldn’t really define damages. And so it sounds like there’s a mechanism, because we’re a homeowners association, but we really don’t have a whole lot of power.
So, if there’s an inherent risk and you live in town, in city limits, you expect a certain amount of safety from fires. Because you’re living in a group. If you have a cabin or a house, it is way out in the forest, I would hope there’s less expectation to have all sorts of resources to defend that one house.
4.2.2. Collective Action, Community, and Variance in Support for Shared Fuel Breaks
So, there’s definitely that dilemma, which when you see these communities burning, you can completely understand why, because everyone wants their trees, they want to feel like they’re in the woods, they want to feel like they’re in a cozy cabin, and the trees are an important part of that.
We are much more firewise now than we’ve ever been before. There’s much more awareness, much more talk about it at the bars and on the streets and stuff like that. And people are more likely to hint to their neighbors, ‘Hey, that’s kind of a fire risk.’
Let me stick up for my neighbors. Eventually, they got used to the changes that we did (i.e., the fuel break). And I think today, they say, ‘they’re responsible, they did a good thing.’ It just took them a while because there’s a resistance to change.
I think for this area we’re talking about, our neighborhood, there’s no practical physical place to have these kind of barriers [i.e., fuel breaks]. Up and down, could be on top of the hill, in the middle of the hill, halfway down the houses, or 100 yards in town. Where do you put this barrier?
I could see maybe if it’s more out of the community a little bit, and it’s not in a neighborhood with already all these other houses around that don’t meet that [HIZ]. If it’s by itself a little bit where it could be pretty exposed to wildfire, then having some wildfire things (i.e., restrictions) on in the construction.
The two areas reach out the river, one’s almost directly west of you down below and the other kind of across from [name] down by the, by the bridge. They’re both messes, they’re both disasters, still are. Need a lot of clean up to be done, vertical as well as horizontal, both ways. It’s a fuel box is what it is right now.
4.2.3. Independence and Outside Relationships: Differences in Zoning, Taxes, and Fire District Support
One of the primary reasons I moved here is that we’re very far away from the rest of the world, and it’s very beautiful. But the third point is there’s a lot less government. So I think the sentiment, don’t you guys agree, in this community is: Nobody tells me what to do. I’m out here away from government. We don’t want government telling us what to do, how to run our lives. I think that’s a dominant attitude.
If I were sitting down writing a report on this meeting right now, this is just my view, the most cohesive force we have in the community is our fire department. The community will support it. Having said that, our fire department’s very small. We need to figure out a way to augment the fire department.
The county will not give us permission to mow that, because of the hillside ordinance, it’s really quite visible from the highway. And so there’s the old Idaho way of doing it, and that’s you do it, and then apologize, and ask forgiveness … But I don’t know that we can get all of those homeowners to even agree on the plan. So to me, it’s so much of this is ‘Big Brother’s’ gonna have to come in and go, ‘No, you guys are idiots, this is what we’re doing.’
We could have the most glorious fire engine in there, that is state-of-the-art. You have no way to get that engine out of there. There is no personnel that is going to take that equipment out of there. You could have a horse and buggy or a grant. We have no plan. The county has no plan or personnel to use the resource.
5. Discussion
5.1. Making Sense of Local Adaptation
5.2. Archetypes of Adaptation Approaches
5.3. Future Directions and Limitations
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Paveglio, T.B.; Moseley, C.; Carroll, M.S.; Williams, D.R.; Davis, E.J.; Fischer, A.P. Categorizing the social context of the wildland urban interface: Adaptive capacity for wildfire and community “archetypes”. For. Sci. 2015, 61, 298–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paveglio, T.B.; Carroll, M.S.; Stasiewicz, A.M.; Williams, D.R.; Becker, D.R. Incorporating social diversity into wildfire management: Proposing “pathways” for fire adaptation. For. Sci. 2018, 64, 515–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roos, C.I.; Scott, A.C.; Belcher, C.M.; Chaloner, W.G.; Aylen, J.; Bird, R.B.; Coughlan, M.R.; Johnson, B.R.; Johnston, F.H.; McMorrow, J.; et al. Living on a flammable planet: Interdisciplinary, cross-scalar and varied cultural lessons, prospects and challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2016, 371, 20150469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brenkert-Smith, H.; Meldrum, J.R.; Champ, P.A.; Barth, C.M. Where you stand depends on where you sit: Qualitative inquiry into notions of fire adaptation. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- USDOI; USDA. The National Strategy: The Final Phase in the Development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
- Fire Adapted Communities Coalition. Fire Adapted Communities. Available online: http://fireadapted.org (accessed on 15 March 2019).
- McCaffrey, S.M. Community wildfire preparedness: A global state-of-the-knowledge summary of social science research. Curr. For. Reports 2015, 1, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ager, A.A.; Kline, J.D.; Fischer, A.P. Coupling the biophysical and social dimensions of wildfire risk to improve wildfire mitigation planning. Risk Anal. 2015, 35, 1393–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Varela, E.; Jacobsen, J.B.; Soliño, M. Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 106, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toman, E.; Shindler, B. Social Science at the Wildland-Urban Interface: A Compendium of Research Results to Create Fire-Adapted Communities; Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-111; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: Newtown Square, PA, USA, 2013; p. 75.
- Moritz, M.A.; Batllori, E.; Bradstock, R.A.; Gill, A.M.; Handmer, J.; Hessburg, P.F.; Leonard, J.; McCaffrey, S.M.; Odion, D.C.; Schoennagel, T.; et al. Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature 2014, 515, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abrams, J.B.; Knapp, M.; Paveglio, T.B.; Ellison, A.; Moseley, C.; Nielsen-Pincus, M. Re-envisioning community-wildfire relations in the U.S. West as adaptive governance. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGee, T.K. Public engagement in neighbourhood level wildfire mitigation and preparedness: Case studies from Canada, the US and Australia. J. Environ. Manage. 2011, 92, 2524–2532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jakes, P.J.; Sturtevant, V. Trial by fire: Community wildfire protection plans put to the test. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2013, 22, 1134–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, P.; Paveglio, T.; Becker, D. The politically possible and wildland fire research. Fire 2018, 1, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sword-Daniels, V.; Eriksen, C.; Hudson-Doyle, E.E.; Alaniz, R.; Adler, C.; Schenk, T.; Vallance, S. Embodied uncertainty: Living with complexity and natural hazards. J. Risk Res. 2018, 21, 290–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steelman, T.A.; McCaffrey, S. Best practices in risk and crisis communication: Implications for natural hazards management. Nat. Hazards 2013, 65, 683–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Canadas, M.J.; Novais, A.; Marques, M. Wildfires, forest management and landowners’ collective action: A comparative approach at the local level. Land Use Policy 2016, 56, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eckerberg, K.; Buizer, M. Promises and dilemmas in forest fire management decision-making: Exploring conditions for community engagement in Australia and Sweden. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 80, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meldrum, J.R.; Brenkert-Smith, H.; Champ, P.A.; Falk, L.; Wilson, P.; Barth, C.M. Wildland–urban interface residents’ relationships with wildfire: Variation within and across communities. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2018, 31, 1132–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jakes, P.J.; Burns, S.; Cheng, A.S.; Saeli, E.; Nelson, K.C.; Brummel, R.F.; Grayzeck, S. Critical elements in the development and implementation of community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs). In The Fire Environment--Innovations, Management, and Policy; Conference Proceedings. 26-30 March 2007; Destin, FL. Proceedings RMRS-P-46CD; Butler, W., Cook, W., Eds.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2007; pp. 613–624. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, D.R.; Jakes, P.J.; Burns, S.; Cheng, A.S.; Nelson, K.C.; Sturtevant, V.; Brummel, R.F.; Staychock, E.; Souter, S.G. Community wildfire protection planning: The importance of framing, scale, and building sustainable capacity. J. For. 2012, 110, 415–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stidham, M.; McCaffrey, S.M.; Toman, E.; Shindler, B. Policy tools to encourage community-level defensible space in the United States: A tale of six communities. J. Rural Stud. 2014, 35, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petty, A.M.; Isendahl, C.; Brenkert-Smith, H.; Goldstein, D.J.; Rhemtulla, J.M.; Ajijur, S.; Kumasi, T.C. Applying historical ecology to natural resource management institutions: Lessons from two case studies of landscape fire management. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 31, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paveglio, T.B.; Carroll, M.S.; Stasiewicz, A.M.; Edgeley, C.M. Social fragmentation and wildfire management: Exploring the scale of adaptive action. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 33, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paveglio, T.B.; Abrams, J.B.; Ellison, A. Developing fire adapted communities: The importance of interactions among elements of local context. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2016, 29, 1246–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paveglio, T.B.; Carroll, M.S.; Jakes, P.J.; Prato, T. Exploring the social characteristics of adaptive capacity for wildfire: Insights from Flathead County, Montana. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2012, 19, 110–124. [Google Scholar]
- Paveglio, T.B.; Jakes, P.J.; Carroll, M.S.; Williams, D.R. Understanding social complexity within the wildland-urban interface: A new species of human habitation? Environ. Manag. 2009, 43, 1085–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paveglio, T.B.; Edgeley, C. Community diversity and hazard events: Understanding the evolution of local approaches to wildfire. Nat. Hazards 2017, 87, 1083–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolters, E.A.; Steel, B.S.; Weston, D.; Brunson, M. Determinants of residential Firewise behaviors in Central Oregon. Soc. Sci. J. 2017, 54, 168–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coughlan, M.R.; Petty, A.M. Linking humans and fire: A proposal for a transdisciplinary fire ecology. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2012, 21, 477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ager, A.A.; Evers, C.R.; Day, M.A.; Preisler, H.K.; Barros, A.M.G.; Nielsen-Pincus, M. Network analysis of wildfire transmission and implications for risk governance. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steen-Adams, M.M.; Charnley, S.; Adams, M.D. Historical perspective on the influence of wildfire policy, law, and informal institutions on management and forest resilience in a multiownership, frequent-fire, coupled human and natural system in Oregon, USA. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLennan, B.J.; Eburn, M. Exposing hidden-value trade-offs: Sharing wildfire management responsibility between government and citizens. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2015, 24, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, A.M.S.; Kolden, C.A.; Paveglio, T.B.; Cochrane, M.A.; Bowman, D.M.; Moritz, M.A.; Kliskey, A.D.; Alessa, L.; Hudak, A.T.; Hoffman, C.M.; et al. The science of firescapes: achieving fire-resilient communities. Bioscience 2016, 66, 130–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, A.P.; Spies, T.A.; Steelman, T.A.; Moseley, C.; Johnson, B.R.; Bailey, J.D.; Ager, A.A.; Bourgeron, P.; Charnley, S.; Collins, B.M.; et al. Wildfire risk as a socioecological pathology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2016, 14, 276–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steelman, T.A. U.S. wildfire governance as social-ecological problem. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spies, T.A.; White, E.M.; Kline, J.D.; Fischer, A.P.; Ager, A.A.; Bailey, J.; Bolte, J.; Koch, J.; Platt, E.; Olsen, C.S.; et al. Examining fire-prone forest landscapes as coupled human and natural systems. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolden, C.A.; Henson, C. A socio-ecological approach to mitigating wildfire vulnerability in the wildland urban interface: A case study from the 2017 Thomas Fire. Fire 2019, 2, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Absher, J.D.; Vaske, J.J. The role of trust in residents’ fire wise actions. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2011, 20, 318–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dickinson, K.; Brenkert-Smith, H.; Champ, P.; Flores, N. Catching fire? Social interactions, beliefs, and wildfire risk mitigation behaviors. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2015, 28, 807–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warziniack, T.; Champ, P.; Meldrum, J.R.; Brenkert-Smith, H.; Barth, C.M.; Falk, L.C. Responding to risky neighbors: Testing for spatial spillover effects for defensible space in a fire-prone WUI community. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mockrin, M.H.; Fishler, H.K.; Stewart, S.I. Does wildfire open a policy window? Local government and community adaptation after fire in the United States. Environ. Manag. 2018, 62, 210–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kocher, S.; Butsic, V. Governance of land use planning to reduce fire risk to homes Mediterranean France and California. Land 2017, 6, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syphard, A.D.; Butsic, V.; Bar-Massada, A.; Keeley, J.E.; Tracey, J.A.; Fisher, R.N. Setting priorities for private land conservation in fire-prone landscapes: Are fire risk reduction and biodiversity conservation competing or compatible objectives? Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Fire Protection Association. Firewise Communities. Available online: www.firewise.org (accessed on 15 March 2019).
- Paveglio, T.; Kelly, E. Influences on the adoption and implementation of a wildfire mitigation program in an Idaho city. J. For. 2018, 116, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macdougall, C.; Gibbs, L.; Clark, R. Community-based preparedness programmes and the 2009 Australian bushfires: Policy implications derived from applying theory. Disasters 2014, 38, 249–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Absher, J.D.; Vaske, J.J.; Peterson, C.L. Community Wildfire Protection Plans in Colorado. J. For. 2017, 116, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jakes, P.J.; Nelson, K.C.; Enzler, S.A.; Burns, S.; Cheng, A.S.; Sturtevant, V.; Williams, D.R.; Bujak, A.; Brummel, R.F.; Grayzeck-Souter, S.; et al. Community wildfire protection planning: Is the Healthy Forests Restoration Act’s vagueness genius? Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2011, 20, 350–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Labossière, L.M.M.; McGee, T.K. Innovative wildfire mitigation by municipal governments: Two case studies in Western Canada. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017, 22, 204–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muller, B.; Schulte, S. Governing wildfire risks: what shapes county hazard mitigation programs? J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2011, 31, 60–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCaffrey, S.M.; Toman, E.; Stidham, M.; Shindler, B. Social science research related to wildfire management: An overview of recent findings and future research needs. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2013, 22, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stasiewicz, A.M.; Paveglio, T.B. Wildfire management across rangeland ownerships: Factors influencing Rangeland Fire Protection Association establishment and functioning. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 71, 727–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abrams, J.B.; Wollstein, K.; Davis, E.J. State lines, fire lines, and lines of authority: Rangeland fire management and bottom-up cooperative federalism. Land Use Policy 2018, 75, 252–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fleeger, W.E.; Becker, M.L. Decision processes for multijurisdictional planning and management: Community wildfire protection planning in Oregon. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2010, 23, 351–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charnley, S.; Kelly, E.C.; Wendel, K.L. All lands approaches to fire management in the Pacific West: A typology. J. For. 2017, 115, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eriksen, C.; Prior, T. The art of learning: Wildfire, amenity migration and local environmental knowledge. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2011, 20, 612–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butler, W.H.; Monroe, A.; McCaffrey, S.M. Collaborative implementation for ecological restoration on US public lands: Implications for legal context, accountability, and adaptive management. Environ. Manag. 2015, 55, 564–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, A.P.; Kline, J.D.; Ager, A.A.; Charnley, S.; Olsen, K.A. Objective and perceived wildfire risk and its influence on private forest landowners’ fuel reduction activities in Oregon’s (USA) ponderosa pine ecoregion. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2014, 23, 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brummel, R.F.; Nelson, K.C.; Jakes, P.J. Burning through organizational boundaries? Examining inter-organizational communication networks in policy-mandated collaborative bushfire planning groups. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2012, 22, 516–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paschen, J.A.; Beilin, R. How a risk focus in emergency management can restrict community resilience-a case study from Victoria, Australia. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2017, 26, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, J.S.; Gruver, J.B.; Flint, C.G.; Luloff, A.E. Perceptions of wildfire and landscape change in the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Environ. Manag. 2013, 52, 807–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyon, C.; Parkins, J.R. Toward a social theory of resilience: Social systems, cultural systems, and collective action in transitioning forest-based communities. Rural Sociol. 2013, 78, 528–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallardo, M.; Gómez, I.; Vilar, L.; Martínez-Vega, J.; Martín, M.P. Impacts of future land use/land cover on wildfire occurrence in the Madrid region (Spain). Reg. Environ. Chang. 2016, 16, 1047–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilkinson, K.P. The Community in Rural America; Greenhouse Publishing Group: Westport, CT, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Brennan, M.A.; Flint, C.G.; Luloff, A.E. Bringing together local culture and rural development: Findings from Ireland, Pennsylvania and Alaska. Sociol. Ruralis 2009, 49, 97–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flint, C.G.; Luloff, A.E.; Theodori, G.L. Extending the concept of community interaction to explore regional community fields. J. Rural Soc. Sci. 2010, 25, 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Theodori, G.L.; Kyle, G.T. Community, Place, and Conservation. In Place-Based Conservation: Perspectives from the Social Sciences; Stewart, W.P., Williams, D.R., Kruger, L.E., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 59–70. [Google Scholar]
- Paveglio, T.B.; Boyd, A.D.; Carroll, M.S. Re-conceptualizing community in risk research. J. Risk Res. 2017, 20, 931–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Theodori, G.L. Community and community development in resource-based areas: Operational definitions rooted in an interactional perspective. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2005, 18, 661–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bridger, J.C.; Luloff, A.E.; Krannich, R.S. Persistence and Change in Rural Communities: A fifty Year follow-up to Six Classic Studies; CAB International: Cambridge, UK, 2002; pp. 9–21. [Google Scholar]
- Flint, C.G.; Luloff, A.E. Natural resource-based communities, risk, and disaster: An intersection of theories. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2005, 18, 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norris, F.H.; Stevens, S.P.; Pfefferbaum, B.; Wyche, K.F.; Pfefferbaum, R.L. Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2008, 41, 127–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paton, D.; Buergelt, P.T.; Cambell, A. Learning to co-exist with environmental hazards: Community and societal perspectives and strategies. Adv. Environ. Res. 2015, 43, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
- Gordon, J.S.; Matarrita-Cascante, D.; Stedman, R.C.; Luloff, A.E. Wildfire perception and community change. Rural Sociol. 2010, 75, 455–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jakes, P.J.; Langer, L. The adaptive capacity of New Zealand communities to wildfire. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2012, 21, 764–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paveglio, T.B.; Edgeley, C.M.; Stasiewicz, A.M. Assessing influences on social vulnerability to wildfire using surveys, spatial data and wildfire simulations. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 213, 425–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collins, T. A landscape typology of residential wildfire risk. In Wildfire and Community: Facilitating Preparedness and Resilience; Charles C Thomas Publisher, Ltd.: Springfield, IL, USA, 2012; pp. 33–62. [Google Scholar]
- Brenkert-Smith, H. Homeowners’ perspectives on the parcel approach to wildland fire mitigation: The role of community context in two Colorado communities. J. For. 2011, 109, 193–200. [Google Scholar]
- Paveglio, T.B.; Carroll, M.S.; Jakes, P.J. Alternatives to evacuation during wildland fire: Exploring adaptive capacity in one Idaho community. Environ. Hazards 2010, 9, 379–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carroll, M.S.; Paveglio, T.B. Using community archetypes to better understand differential community adaptation to wildfire risk. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2016, 371, 20150344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlop, P.D.; McNeill, I.M.; Boylan, J.L.; Morrison, D.L.; Skinner, T.C. Preparing … for what? Developing multi-dimensional measures of community wildfire preparedness for researchers, practitioners and households. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2014, 23, 887–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, R.K. How to better use case studies: With illustrations from 20 exemplary cases studies. In The Sage Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013; pp. 254–282. [Google Scholar]
- Silverman, D.; Marvasti, A. Doing Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Guide; Sage Publications, Inc.: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Flyvbjerg, B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual. Inq. 2006, 12, 219–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flyvbjerg, B. Case study. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research; Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., Eds.; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011; pp. 301–316. [Google Scholar]
- Bryman, A. Social Research Methods, 4th ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Homburg, C.; Klarmann, M.; Reimann, M.; Schilke, O. What drives key informant accuracy? J. Mark. Res. 2012, 49, 594–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindlof, T.R.; Taylor, B.C. Qualitative Communication Research Methods; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Charmaz, K. Grounded theory: Objectivist and contructivist methods. Handb. Qual. Res. 2000, 509–535. [Google Scholar]
- Flick, U. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Cresswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Finch, H.; Lewis, J. Focus groups. In Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers; Riche, J., Lewis, J., Eds.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003; pp. 170–198. [Google Scholar]
- Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Siegel, S.; Castellan, N.J. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Howell, D.C. Statistical Methods for Psychology, 7th ed.; Cengage Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Toothaker, L.E. Multiple Comparison Procedures; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Suter, W.N. Introduction to Educational Research: A Critical Thinking Approach; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Gibbs, G.R. Analysing Qualitative Data. In The SAGE Qualitative Research Kit; Flick, U., Ed.; SAGE: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Saldaña, J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Richards, L. Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide, 2nd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Boyatzis, R.E. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Ryan, G.W.; Bernard, H.R. Data management and analysis methods. In Handbook of Qualitative Research; Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y.S., Eds.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2000; pp. 768–802. [Google Scholar]
- Lyn, R. Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide; SAGE Publ. Ltd.: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Radeloff, V.C.; Helmers, D.P.; Kramer, H.A.; Mockrin, M.H.; Alexandre, P.M.; Bar-Massada, A.; Butsic, V.; Hawbaker, T.J.; Martinuzzi, S.; Syphard, A.D.; et al. Rapid growth of the US wildland-urban interface raises wildfire risk. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2018, 201718850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paveglio, T.B.; Carroll, M.S.; Jakes, P.J. Adoption and perceptions of shelter-in-place in Californias Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2010, 19, 677–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen-Pincus, M.; Ribe, R.G.; Johnson, B.R. Spatially and socially segmenting private landowner motivations, properties, and management: A typology for the wildland urban interface. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 137, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ascher, T.J.; Wilson, R.S.; Toman, E. The importance of affect, perceived risk and perceived benefit in understanding support for fuels management among wildland-urban interface residents. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2013, 22, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hjerpe, E.; Kim, Y.S.; Dunn, L. Forest density preferences of homebuyers in the wildland-urban interface. For. Policy Econ. 2016, 70, 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Location | Approximate Number of Residential Properties | Formal or Informal Community Boundaries | Community Organizations or Governance | Fuel Type/Fuel Conditions | Approximate Housing Density and Patterns | Proximity to Nearby Public Lands | Existing Collective Fire Mitigation Efforts | Preliminary Archetype |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Story, WY | Approximately 500 lots | Informal and unincorporated; geographically bounded by two creeks | Numerous local clubs and organizations (e.g., Story development fund, Women’s Club, Lions Club); local volunteer fire department | Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and some lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) | Predominantly small, densely packed residential properties on forested lots | Directly adjacent to the Bighorn National Forest on three sides | Fuel break funded through federal grant; Firewise community; fundraising for volunteer fire department | Rural-lifestyle/working landscape, resource dependent |
Sun Valley, ID | Approximately 180 lots | Formal, but unincorporated; defined by homeowners association boundaries | Starweather Homeowners Association; Heatherlands Homeowners Association; Coverage by two local fire departments (some paid professional positions, mostly volunteer). | Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) and old-growth quaking aspen (Populous tremuloides) adjacent to Big Wood River; extends to sagebrush rangeland | Small formal subdivisions with distinct boundaries | Directly adjacent to Bureau of Land Management rangeland; approximately 4 miles to the Sawtooth National Forest | Fuel break in Heatherlands on common ground adjacent to BLM land, initially funded by Firewise grant. Both subdivisions are Firewise communities | Formal subdivision/high amenity, high resource |
Bull River, MT | Approximately 129 lots | Informal and unincorporated; defined by landmarks (MT Highway 56, Bull River) and public land boundaries | No community organizations | Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and western larch (Larix occidentalis) | Widely spaced forest and meadow parcels of varying sizes spread out along a river valley | Surrounded by the Kootenai National Forest on all sides | None reported | Rural lifestyle/working landscape, resource dependent |
Timber Lakes, UT | Approximately 1475 lots | Formal, but unincorporated; Defined by Property Owner’s Association | Property Owner’s Association; primarily volunteer fire department in nearby Heber City | Predominantly Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) in lower portions; quaking aspen (Populous tremuloides) in higher portions | Sprawling parcels interspersed within native vegetation; some residents purchase neighboring parcels to increase their property size and privacy | Adjacent state and federal lands, with recreational trails into Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest | Fuel break on select edges of Timber Lakes funded by a Hazardous Fuels Reduction Grant; chipping program for disposal of excess fuels | High amenity, high resource, rural lifestyle |
La Grande, OR | Approximately 206 lots | Formal and incorporated; city limits define outer edge of study area | Local church groups; professional fire department; city ordinances and codes | Ornamental juniper and trees, Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) within community; patches of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and grand fir (Abies grandis) beyond community boundaries | Densely packed lots comprising the neighborhood of an incorporated city | Approximately 5 miles from Wallowa-Whitman National Forest | None reported | Formal subdivision |
Location | Story, WY | Sun Valley, ID | Timber Lakes, UT | Bull River, MT | La Grande, OR | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | 46 | 32 | 44 | 36 | 30 | 188 |
Location | Story | Sun Valley | Timber Lakes | Bull River | La Grande | F * |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Increasing voluntary mitigations performed by residents on their properties | 1.37 | 1.37 | 1.17 | 1.51 | 1.07 | 1.09 |
Requirement of vegetation mitigations on private properties that are enforced with fines or penalties | −0.33 a | 1.17 b | 0.455 a,b | −0.771 a,c | 0.786 b | 16.384 *** |
Hiring private contractors to reduce wildfire risk on private lands | 0.889 | 1.063 | 0.500 | 0.400 | 0.793 | 2.00 |
Use of prescribed fire to reduce risk near the community | 0.744 | 0.035 | 0.590 | 0.177 | 0.679 | 1.67 |
Promoting community-wide fuel breaks using large-scale fuels reduction projects | 1.178 a | 0.375 b,c | 1.158 a,b | 0.972 a,b | 0.103 c | 7.420 *** |
Homeowners association (HOA) requirements related to individual mitigations on private properties | −0.897 a | 0.844 b | 0.526 b | −1.15 a | −0.750 a | 18.017 *** |
Fostering recognized Firewise communities | 1.023 a | 1.45 a,b | 1.15 a,b | 0.735 a,c | 0.393 c | 7.164 *** |
Location | Story | Sun Valley | Timber Lakes | F * |
---|---|---|---|---|
Retrofitting wildland-urban interface (WUI) dwellings with fire resistant materials | 0.293 | 0.741 | 0.500 | 1.001 |
Zoning efforts restricting additional or new development | −0.651 a | 0.846 b | 0.579 b | 15.892 *** |
Additional local taxes to support wildfire management | −0.350 a | 0.200 a,b | .632 b | 6.466 ** |
Strengthening the capacity of local fire districts | 1.163 a | 0.815 b | 1.31 a | 3.355 * |
Pressure to set insurance premiums based on mitigation actions | 0.600 a | 1.27 b | 1.18 b | 5.391 ** |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Paveglio, T.B.; Edgeley, C.M.; Carroll, M.; Billings, M.; Stasiewicz, A.M. Exploring the Influence of Local Social Context on Strategies for Achieving Fire Adapted Communities. Fire 2019, 2, 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire2020026
Paveglio TB, Edgeley CM, Carroll M, Billings M, Stasiewicz AM. Exploring the Influence of Local Social Context on Strategies for Achieving Fire Adapted Communities. Fire. 2019; 2(2):26. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire2020026
Chicago/Turabian StylePaveglio, Travis B., Catrin M. Edgeley, Matthew Carroll, Mark Billings, and Amanda M. Stasiewicz. 2019. "Exploring the Influence of Local Social Context on Strategies for Achieving Fire Adapted Communities" Fire 2, no. 2: 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire2020026