 |
| Wing-Yee Kelly Cheah; photos Alex Tat-Shing Chow |
Questions can focus on the substance of the papers, implications of findings for policy, applications of ideas to management, critiques of conclusions, inquiries about methods, etc. For
instance, think about posing some of your questions as the potential for
application to real-world settings, policy, or tools designed to improve the
management of wildfire risk. Explore particular issues, challenges, or
scenarios that you are facing or might face in the future given your career
goals. Consider how other stakeholders at risk from fire might approach or
perceive of these same topics. Or pose questions as someone who wants to learn
more about a way the wildfire management system works.
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.
Although the National Action Plan defines “fire-adapted communities” in terms of the ability of human populations and infrastructure to withstand wildfire without loss of either life or property (3), I feel unsatisfied with how the term “adaptation” is used throughout the readings. In Smith et al, the term is often defined by use of the self-same word “adaptation” or co-mingled with the terms “mitigation” or “resilience” (141-142); in Steelman, “adaptation” is, at best, a neutral co-existence. How might borrowing the ecological definition of adaptation, in which populations evolve to THRIVE with an environmental challenge, re-frame our thinking of how to “live with fire”?
ReplyDeleteSetting aside Steelman’s temporal definition of “exogenous” as that which remains constant on the scale of a 100 years or more (2), many of the factors discussed in framing wildfire as a social-ecological problem are exogenous to fire policy itself: industrialization leading to climate change, the social desire for living in the WUI, the polarized shifts of electoral politics. How could the concept of “firescape” introduced by Smith et al be both expansive enough and localized enough to include these kinds of factors? On what kind of scale and through what means would this introduction and implementation of the “firescape” concept be most effective?
How do “thresholds” and “tipping points” differ from the kinds of wildfire events that cause “fast”, reactive policy shifts deemed most acceptable to the public by policymakers?
For this weeks readings I enjoyed reading/learning more about the focuses of wildfire. One section that stood out the most to me was in Smith et al, the researchers shortly mention the indigenous ecological knowledge behind wildfires. As an indigenous person myself I enjoyed the incorporation of TEK however I hoped to have a longer discussion of the importance behind indigenous beliefs/traditions. I wondered if the researchers would focus on TEK for future researches.
ReplyDeleteThe National Action Plan mentioned the four broad challenges focusing on management, protection, and safety towards vegetation, homes, and communities. However, I noticed there wasn't much focus towards wildlife and their habitat it was only mentioned shortly. Would focusing on wildlife help prepare for proper management/protection not only for human purposes but also wildlife? Would a future plan focus more towards wildlife and their habitats?
In Steelman's paper there were key characteristics mentioned (2)identifying future social & ecological thresholds of concerns. As I was reading this paper I was wondering how do we focus on the future social & ecological thresholds while the environment is changing due to factors as climate change, and numerous species are adapting to new conditions. How can we prepare for these future changes?
These readings offer a lot to chew on. I think Sasha’s second paragraph gets at the basic aporia or blind spot that the all-encompassing policy framework of “social-ecological” struggles to come to terms with, which is that supposedly non-ecological social relationships like the “social desire for living in the WUI” are inherently viewed as external or “exogenous” to fire policy itself, despite the fact that such desires clearly impact fire regimes. Would a shift in focus toward political-ecology or political-ecological relationships improve our understanding of the biophysical nature of social agents and relationships?
ReplyDeleteThe policy frameworks and recommendations offered by Smith et al. and Steelman are holistic, rigorous, extremely sensitive to the complexities and dynamism inherent to social-ecological relationships. And yet I can't help but wonder: After 50 years of wildfire science/policy/discourse, why are the two greatest ideas or tools in fire management still Bambi and Smokey Bear? What accounts for their ability to affect and manage social-ecological relationships?
I enjoyed and learned from these articles but at times became frustrated by a sense of disconnect between the broad sweeping level of discourse and the real world problems that the articles were discussing. With that, here are a few thoughts/questions.
ReplyDelete1. The National Action Plan describes the goal of fire adapted communities as those that withstand wildfire without loss of life and property. A wildfire without property damage seems like the exception to the rule. Does this goal promote the continuation of unrealistic expectations for fire managers and living in a fire prone landscape, and thus become counterproductive in the effort to normalize fire as a necessary ecological process?
2. The changes in fuels, wildfire behavior, and climate have created conditions that our governance is poorly suited to address (Steelman, 2016). Were our governance structures ever well suited to managing the problem of wildland fire? Are there other governance structures around analogous problems that could provide a template for how to deal with this issue?
3. These articles uniformly promote the use of prescribed fire as though it is not recognized as an important tool already. What are the barriers to implementing prescribed fire that are absent from these papers? Do private land prescribed fire programs exist? What policies help or hinder the implementation of prescribed fire (i.e., air quality regulations on smoke, etc.)?
4. With only 16% of the WUI developed (as of 2016) a large part of the wildland fire social-ecological problem will continue to get worse. Steelman blames inaction by insurance companies, and lack of state/local government regulation. Are there examples where zoning or incentivizing density has been effective to curb development? Does this problem continue to worsen given the lack of affordable housing is pervasive across the Western United States?
Sorry for the lateness, feel free to disregard these questions!
ReplyDelete1. Often, articles focused on the sociological component of risk, including both articles we read this week and the goals of the National Action Plan, emphasize a need for community cohesion. Wildfire is indeed a social-ecological issue, and in order to take any steps toward changing, people need to feel a sense of buy-in and an understanding of the “shift in the ecological subsystem” (Steelman 2016). Are there ways to create policy and educational programs that encourage this, and what types of interpersonal skills within agency leadership would specifically help?
2. Is it possible to truly evaluate human perceptions of and responses to fire’s role in the landscape? I wonder what a successful study of these perceptions might look like, and how researchers could try to work around the issue of significant portions of people not responding to various types of surveys - or not responding honestly? It seems to me like it’d be difficult to adequately assess the cultural influence of fire definitions, especially if many ideas like this are embedded deeply and maybe unconsciously.
3. On a purely practical level, regarding the National Action Plan: should updating building codes include a component of homeowner education on retrofitting materials and costs?
1) Policies that related to wildfire governance are often combatted by influences from social-ecological systems which dampen their impact. Similarly, issues related do wildfire governance often see a disconnect between social and ecological trends (Steelman 2016). How can one mitigate these outside influences so that policies can have a lasting impact?
ReplyDelete2) Funding for wildfire governance in the past has been more readily available for fire suppression than prevention (Steelman 2016). Why does funding support suppression over prevention and how could this be linked to the negative pre-dis position some citizens have toward the use of wildfire as tool?
3) The 2014 Wildfire Funding Act allowed the largest wildfires to be treated as a natural disaster using funding from FEMA. In the future should a similar policy be introduced which allows FEMA funding to be used for large scale wildfire prevention techniques?
The National Action Plan refers to the need for participation of all jurisdictions in fire response, one of the challenges listed Is “safely, effectively, & efficiently responding to wildfire”. With that in mind one of the areas not addressed is that resources, specifically local, are struggling under the burden of the current situation. Many of the local resources in WUI areas are responsible for all-hazards response, having recruitment and retention issues, and are seeing an increased strain due to similar problems in other systems (economic, healthcare, criminal justice, etc.). While the National Action Plan is specifically targeting what actions need to be taken for wildfire management, how can we expect jurisdictions (especially local, tribal, and state) to take on their necessary role without acknowledging and including investment in their other responsibilities?
ReplyDeleteI Like the reframing of the problem in Steelman’s article as social-ecological. Acknowledging institutionalized policies and the inherent complexity seems like a large factor in the problem. When institutionalized policies and behaviors are identified as needing to change will it even be possible to change them? There will inevitably be resistance to changes within institutions, as well as anger when need changes are not happening fast enough. I can imagine champions of change will feel like they are “damned if we do, damned if we don’t”. What actions can we take to support and protect those who need to champion changes?
1. The National Action plan lays out 3 overarching goals for successful wildfire management moving:
ReplyDelete1. Prioritize investment and use of resources.
2. Accept increased short-term risk.
3. Achieve greater collective investment.
Accepting increased risk and achieving greater collective investment are two goals that come into conflict with each other when a fire management decision goes awry. We have seen clear examples of this the last two years: the Tamarack Fire, which burned from the Mokelumne Wilderness into a residential area of Douglas County, NV (Alonzo, 2021), and the Calf Canyon-Hermits Peak Fire, which began as a prescribed fire and became the largest wildfire in New Mexico history and destroyed hundreds of structures (Davis, 2022). The conflict between these goals is a significant impediment to implementing more fire on the landscape, as is needed in many areas. What are some ways we can reduce this conflict?
2. Smith et al. discuss identifying areas of high vulnerability and promoting standards within those areas to achieve resilience. To what extent should private citizens be responsible for hardening their own properties versus the land management agencies responsible for the surrounding land? Should municipalities be able to fine property owners, place liens on properties, or use other punitive tools to enforce codified standards? (Smith et al., 2016)
3. Steelman lays out 4 main principles for designing a government strategy for wildlife:
1. Do not take historical patterns as givens.
2. Identify future social and ecological thresholds of concern.
3. Embrace diversity/heterogeneity as principles in ecological and social responses.
4. Create learning among different scales of actors throughout the governance system.
(Steelman, 2016)
Are these principles in line with the overarching goals of the National Action Plan? How can we increase collective investment and focus on the slow variables that influence the wildfire risk problem?
Alonzo, A. (2021, July 23). Tamarack Fire: Nearly $9 million in damages incurred so far—Search interactive map. Reno Gazette Journal. https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2021/07/23/nearly-9-million-damages-incurred-so-far-tamarack-fire/8078233002/
Davis, T. (2022, May 13). More wildfire resources sought. Albuquerque Journal. https://www.abqjournal.com/2498881/new-mexico-crews-split-firefighting-into-north-south-zones.html
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., Lutz, J. A., Queen, L. P., Goetz, S. J., Higuera, P. E., Boschetti, L., Flannigan, M., Yedinak, K. M., Watts, A. C., Strand, E. K., … Abatzoglou, J. T. (2016). The Science of Firescapes: Achieving Fire-Resilient Communities. Bioscience, 66(2), 130–146. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv182
Steelman, T. (2016). U.S. wildfire governance as social-ecological problem. Ecology and Society, 21(4), 3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08681-210403
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete