 |
| Rocky Mountain Research Station |
Please enter at least three discussion questions based upon the assigned readings for this week. The structure of your questions and comments is up to you. Challenge yourself to make some recommendations about the design, planning, or implementation of fuels treatment projects/programs based upon what you learned from the readings.
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.
I look forward to our discussion.
Meldrum 2024 –
ReplyDeleteBesides the communities in western Colorado discussed by the reading, are there any other demographic groups within the lower income category that show even lower participation rates? If single-parent households are part of these groups, how do we motivate them to engage with this wildfire management programs if work and childcare responsibilities are taking almost all of their time?
Paveglio and Edgeley –
Social fragmentation can complicate the implementation of treatments if not carefully understood and addressed.
Are values more likely to determine the acceptance or opposition to a fuel treatment’s implementation, or are previous experiences with land management practices more likely to be the deciding factor?
Toman 2014 –
When I read this paper the first thought that came to my mind was:
How is it possible that the perceived risk of wildfire does not always correlate with support for treatments? How can some areas that are less prone to wildfires have higher support and acceptance of fuel treatment strategies than areas where the risk of wildfire is much higher?
Besides trust in government, what other factors can cause this?
Toman et al
ReplyDeleteHow do you think these responses are similar or different to what you think individuals would have said 20-50 years ago? Confidence in agency managers is a heavily weighted factor in influencing public opinion. How can relational and calculative trust be increased?
Meldrum et al
Social vulnerabilities and environmental justice influence on willingness to join the cost share program was strongly correlated to income and education. I was really interested in the map found in Figure 1, noting the two reservations towards the south end of the map. Have there been similar studies done specifically on reservations or comparing non-reservation land to reservation land? The study area is quite small in the grand scheme of widespread application. Do you think these results would be similar in other geographic regions?
Paveglio and Edgeley
Thinking about how to design a fuel treatment program… I’m envisioning (potentially quarterly) community involvement days. One example of a community involvement day could be a learn and burn. Other examples could be herbicide application, manual thinning, or mastication. These days could involve workshops with classroom and field portions with plenty of opportunities to ask questions. I think this would help work towards substance, procedure, and relationships intersection.
Meldrum 2024
ReplyDeleteWhat mitigation techniques do you view as being more difficult to implement? For instance, do you believe that grants or cost-sharing programs would have more drawbacks?
Toman 2014
Why do distinct states differ regarding their want for fuels management? Is it predominantly due to their historical experience with fire, or are there other factors?
Do you think it is odd if there was similar support for fuels management independent of respondent age? Since suppression is an older technique and management is newer, I would expect some variation, even if it is slight.
Paveglio and Edgeley 2023
From the readings I gather that there are distinct views on fuels management within a single community. What actions do you think should be imposed to promote community engagement and understanding? For example, perhaps if there is an HOA present they may want to facilitate this among residents.
Meldrum:
ReplyDeleteI wonder how a cost share program could be designed to overcome potential challenges faced by lower income respondents including initial capital outlays and complicated bureaucratic processes. Could agencies perhaps channel grants to local organizations that could facilitate easier processes for accessing and utilizing funds? (e.g. direct payments to contractors, minimal paperwork).
Toman:
It seems like the frequency and nature of prior experiences with land management agencies is an important factor determining acceptance of fuels treatment, and I'm wondering how confidence in agency managers can be increased. It seems like maybe this needs to start early? Perhaps there could be some level of engagement between agency representatives and young people, like workshops in high schools or summer programs involving kids/teenagers in discussion about fire and mitigation? This might establish a basis for long-term, frequent interaction and buildup of trust between people in certain areas and land management agencies/representatives, and perhaps the information/sentiment would also flow up to the parents.
Paveglio and Edgeley:
It is important to understand the history of a place and the legacy of interactions between people and agencies in order to tailor programs that will receive community support. Can information about prior community/agency interactions be memorialized somewhere so that people involved with planning fuels treatment activities have some understanding of the social landscape before starting to plan a project? How can social knowledge and trust relationships be preserved when there is a lot of turnover in government jobs?
Meldrum (2024):
ReplyDeleteThe article identifies a lack of liquid assets, difficulty navigating grant applications, and avoidance of government aid to be potential barriers for lower income residents participating in cost-share programs. Why else might these residents be less likely to participate?
Toman (2014):
Toman et al. use four levels of treatment acceptance in their study survey, the highest being, ‘‘a legitimate tool that resource managers should be able to use whenever they see fit’’. If a fifth, more extreme level of acceptance was added to indicate public advocacy or vocalized support for a fuels treatment, what factors might influence it? Do you think trust and perceived effectiveness would still be the most influential?
Paveglio and Edgeley (2023):
The Lost Driveway project was the only widely accepted and successful case study examined. It was also the only treatment that was fragmented, rather than contiguous. Do you think that treatment fragmentation plays a role in acceptance? Should it be considered when designing and planning, or was this just a coincidence?
1. How might or should 'squeaky-wheels' be neutralized in environmental management planning? What social structures or systemic advantages empower certain individuals or groups to exert outsized influence in environmental decision-making? Can civil servants maintain neutrality in natural resource management, or do personal values inevitably shape their decision-making? How can agencies account for and mitigate potential biases?
ReplyDelete2. How might citizen involvement be reimagined in natural hazard policy planning? Should informal outreach play a greater role in engagement and participation strategies, and what methods best suit different community demographics? What tools and data do local agencies have access to assess which engagement approaches will be most effective?
3. How might trust dynamics influence participants' willingness to participate in cost-share programs? What other underlying motivators or factors might detract from an individual's desire to engage in preparedness activities?
Meldrum et al. 2024: In response to this paper stating that the definition of a “community” can and does vary, most of these communities are either clearly defined by local geography or else named as subdivisions within county assessor records; comm… communities can and are often culturally/socially determined, how can we ensure that these types of communities are accounted for and adequately represented in these contexts, not solely communities in an official/legal context?
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, given that “Most properties are rated as either High (30%) or Very High (33%) risk. Respondents with higher incomes are less likely to have properties with wildfire risks rated as Low, Moderate, or High risks, and more likely to have properties with Extreme wildfire risk.”, how can we modify what classifies risk in these contexts and moving forward in the WUI? Risk here is monetarily driven/determined, but how can we ensure this is more closely aligned with how wildland firefighters determine and classify risk- by danger, safety, and severity?
Toman et al. 2014: This paper was published in 2014, how might this “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” spoken of by the authors have changed in recent years with recent “megafires”, “catastrophic wildfires”, climate change, etc?
Paveglio and Edgeley 2023: This study touches on the influence of “waves of migrants” influencing land management in the Methow Valley. This happens to an extent everywhere (think of colonial expansion for example) and therefore impacts land and fire management on a wide scale. How might we be able to not only expect this to continue, but also account for it, learn from it, and utilize it to our advantage for our given landscapes and forest management? Particularly while still honoring, preserving, and advocating for continued place-based historic management that may otherwise be overlooked, overshadowed, or forgotten in favor of new waves of management along with new waves of people as mentioned?
Meldrum:
ReplyDeleteThe author states, "Indeed, national surveys show that large proportions of adults in the U.S. would be unable to directly cover an unexpected expense of $400". What price range would be more enticing for the average American? Could members subscribe to a monthly payment?
Paveglio:
"Respondents were quick to outline how ongoing waves of migrants to the region, many of whom came from the
more populated west side of Washington across the Cascade Mountains, created a wide diversity of perspectives about environmental management, use of public lands, and resource extraction." Are citizens trapped in a past mindset? From this statement, it seems like individuals aren't realistic about how connected the world is. How can we emphasize that migrants will continue to come in and that working together will meet the needs of the whole community, rather than dividing it into smaller subsets.
Toman:
When discussing fire in mail-out surveys, how can manage using prescribed fire or fire mitigation practices in these locations without 100% approval from the citizens? I ask because smoke and noise pollution from these treatments can affect the entire community rather than individual parcels. Could this reinforce a negative mindset regarding fire mitigation practices for certain citizens?
Meldrum:
ReplyDeleteThe author described other studies that found "that communities in the southeastern U.S. with high risk and high social vulnerability were less involved with developing CWPPs and Firewise USA programs compared to more affluent high-risk communities, despite similar levels of awareness of risk". This brought to mind that individuals who are low income tend to have less time to spend on things that are not geared towards survival. It can be difficult to plan for the future when you have to focus so much on where you day-to-day necessities come from. How can we make meaningful change in adaptive capacity given this?
Paveglio:
Trust is a huge factor in whether or not a community will implement a specific treatment. How do we foster that sense of trust? There needs to be development of personal relationships with resource managers and firefighters but how does that initial interaction occur?
Toman:
The author described that an increased knowledge of treatments could contribute to the reduced concerns of their use and overall provide a positive belief in their efficacy. How can we provide this to the public when treatment outcomes are usually shown when things go awry?