Risk conceptions and understandings

                            Wildfirerisk.org

Please enter at least three discussion questions based upon the assigned readings for this week. Questions can focus on the substance of the papers, implications for policy, applications to management, critiques of conclusions, inquires about methods, etc. 

If you have particular issues, challenges, or scenarios that you would like to explore given your experience or interest, please state those in your comments. The class could discuss your particular example and use it as a way to develop our shared capacity.

Thanks for the good discussion last week. I look forward to more.

Remember that your comments and questions are due by noon on Monday before class. This provides enough time for our discussion leads to synthesize questions.

11 comments:

  1. Calkin et al. 2014
    Regarding the survey for Larimer and Boulder residents, including 127 individuals evacuated during the Fourmile Canyon Fire, a large majority (96%) had completed wildfire mitigation activities. Although most (>80%) did not recognize characteristics (i.e. HIZ) affects home destruction. This shows individuals wanting involvement. Therefore, if they had the necessary information for mitigation implementation, do you think professionals can trust individuals with greater roles?

    Essen et al. 2023
    It is denoted that technically focused efforts do not incorporate all knowledge (i.e. Indigenous knowledge) for wildfire risk management. In what ways can stakeholders (i.e. agencies and residents) better work together to articulate wildfire risk management and overall diversify the subject? How can professionals promote participation?

    Slovic et al. 2004
    How can professionals include risk as analysis and feelings to better push stakeholders to take action on issues, such as for acquiring the resources for proper wildfire risk management? I found the variability in action to be astounding when the same information was posed in distinct formats (i.e. percentages to ratios) and wonder how these differences in dialogue can drive change.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Calkin:
    Referencing Figure 1... The conceptual model ranging from primary responsibility to objective (Level 1). I really like the actions row. Something that stood out to me was on the actions row, I think that something incredibly valuable and crucial not included was education. People want to know WHY and understand the purpose. To me, education would also span across agencies, government and homeowners. Is there any aspect you would add to this conceptual model?

    Essen:
    Which of the five principles do you agree/align with most? Is there one that you would add?

    Slovic:
    How do you balance/weigh the experiential system and the analytic system? Is there a time/place when one system should be used/prioritized over the other?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Essen cont: I was particularly drawn to the principle regarding "inclusive,
      accountable, and transparent engagement strategies." How would our current wildfire state look/be different if this had happened decades/centuries ago? How can this inclusion alter the future of the wildfire crisis?

      Delete
  3. Slovic:
    Marketing, or intentional manipulation, is listed as a pitfall of affective thought. Do you think fires should be "marketed" as good or bad? Why or why not?

    Essen:
    Would you consider fire to be a complex risk in every geographic location? Across time? Where or when might fire be considered a simple risk?

    Calkin:
    Is it possible to devise a "well-structured problem statement" for a wicked problem?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Calkin:

    With growing concerns around the WUI and wildfire interactions with structures and the urban interface, should there be government benefits or incentives to encourage landowners to properly treat their land? Loggers and landowners frequently operate under tight margins, having the additional cost of treatments could potentially result in the operation losing money rather than gaining money.

    Essen:

    How can integrating private citizens into the 5 principles result in a reduction of risk of wildfire? Would you include, replace, or exclude any of these?

    Slovic:

    Do you agree with the following statement made in the paper under the “Risk and Benefit Judgments” Section. “This result implies that people base their judgments of an activity or a technology not only on what they think about it but also on how they feel about it.”

    ReplyDelete
  5. Calkin et al. 2014:
    1) How can we ensure these risk assessments are adequately scalable to differing fuel types, locations, operational conditions, etc.?
    2) How can we ensure that weather conditions are not only explicitly mentioned but also adhered to when it comes to designing, implementing, and maintaining surface fuels near the WUI?
    3) How can we better educate the public about WUI fuels reduction requirements or encourage/require property visits to ensure these things are done adequately for the given fuel type, location, fire regime, etc.?

    Essen et al. 2023:
    1) How can we encourage a more holistic, complex risk definition to be not only understood and considered, but accepted by residents, recreationists, environmental groups, local officials, politicians, etc.?
    2) How can we better encourage other entities to (respectfully) learn from and adapt the approach of emulating a governing model that accounts for shared power and responsibility for wildfire risk across actors and is informed by local contexts and diverse knowledges, like that of The Fire Adapted Communities Network (FAC Net) and Indigenous Peoples Burning Network (IPBN)?
    3) How can we better implement Principle 3 (Include underrepresented groups in wildfire risk governing networks) into policy-level decision-making regarding risk? And how can we ensure it is actually integrated top-down and throughout all levels and scales?

    Slovic et al. 2004:
    1) How can fire scientists utilize the risk analytic system to more effectively relate to fire managers implementing what they are seeing scientifically out on the ground operationally? How can these fire managers better tailor the risk experiential system to relate what they see out on the ground to fire scientists?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Calkin:

    "High value, developed assets located in areas prone to wildfire hazards, along with more frequent, extreme weather events possibly caused by global climate change, have implications to society, national governments, and the global insurance industry."
    -The way this is worded makes me think that there are far more that are being affected by the fire that are not being considered, since they may not fit the "high value, developed assets." Why are these types of areas the only ones that are written about?

    Essen:

    If the "guardianship model" is not effective, what model would be? Could a change towards a stewardship model alleviate this?

    Slovic:

    Science has favored objectivity and if you put too much emotion you cross the line into advocacy. Without emotion the full story is missed, so how can we balance reason and emotions?

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1) How might HIZ practices become more localized? Are the generalizable scale and procedures adequate for mitigating individuals' risks across different fire regimes?
    2) How might communication models be altered to meet the needs of a complex risk paradigm? Does this include a shift in how we generate knowledge?
    3) How can we ethically utilize the complex interplay between emotion, affect, and reason to achieve mutual understanding in risk management? What balance (if any) is needed between an experiential and analytic system to meet risk management goals?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Calkin:

    What role do insurance companies play in incentivizing homeowners to adopt wildfire risk reduction strategies?

    Essen:

    How might the proposed shift to complex risk influence funding allocations for wildfire management initiatives?

    Slovic:

    How can we measure the effectiveness of integrating emotional considerations into traditional risk analysis frameworks?

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1- In the Calkin paper it mentions that there is a historical precedent for a wildfire disasters in the west, I’m just curious why there hasn’t been a previous policy to create more space between the WUI. For instance, something saying that you have to be so far away, creating a larger buffer zone between the two it seems that doing that would also help solve the homes ignition issue an adding a broader public education campaign on the topic. Of course I’m very new to this world so there could be something already which begs the question does it need expanding or is it not being enforced?
    2- In the Essen Paper, they state 5 principles on how to approach wildfires. My question is how do we better get them out there with more support in the policy and implication realm? Specifically, in regard to numbers 1 & 3, that the authors themselves point out, a very similar.
    3- Paul Slavic mention some great points and his paper. It’s not an unknown concept to know that humans are either very logical or emotional when doing any type of assessment risk or otherwise, and their lives. I do like how he pointed out a blend of the two models is best. Said it seems this paper could be useful for project managers to use both calculations and emotions to get stakeholders more invested. my question would be is the already an approach or model that project managers would use to incorporate that?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Is Calkin et al.'s research (or other research focusing on interplay between HIZ management and WUI treatments) reflected in any USFS plans/policy? It seems like the Crisis Strategy doesn't really address HIZ management or advance what Calkin et al. call an "integrated risk-sharing approach". Instead, the USFS doubles down on fuels treatment activities in the WUI, even though this paper suggests that such an approach won't be especially effective to reducing property losses across different types of landscapes/communities. I didn't read the entire Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, but it didn't seem to address HIZ activities or integrated risk management in much depth either. If more focus needs to be on HIZ management, what would be the best way (from an agency perspective) to approach that?

    Calkin et al.'s paper seems to focus on risk to homes in the WUI (and briefly towards the end mentions landscapes). Are there other values that should be considered when assessing wildfire risk? Are there situations when homes aren't even the priority?

    Essen et al. say that institutions like the USFS can be "sticky": what makes them sticky and how could they be less so? What kind of "tipping point" could cause the USFS (or another agency) to shift its management approach?

    How is media coverage shaping peoples' understandings/judgements about risk from wildfire? Slovic et al.'s paper states that story and narrative formats have been found to induce greater perceptions of risk. On the other hand, the paper talks about "psychophysical numbing", or insensitivity to large-scale suffering, and says that the affective system is more sensitive to smaller, immediate environmental changes/risks. Is one (or more) of these processes at play? Would changes to the framing or focus of media coverage make a difference?

    ReplyDelete