 |
| Rocky Mountain Research Station |
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.
by noon on Monday before class. This provides enough time for our discussion leads to synthesize questions.
I look forward to our discussion.
Cheng and Dale discuss scalar mismatches between the size of fuel treatments (mean of 191 acres), the likelihood of a wildfire encountering those areas, and the concern of researchers that the severity of contemporary wildfires is due more to “climatic forcings” than to fuel accumulations (676). They conclude, however, that “the WRRG program was as much about building the social capacities for community-level collective action in order to increase participation over time and across the state” (677). Will increased participation and more instances of collective action remedy these scalar mismatches? How does the fact that these actions have been legislated to be funded through gas and oil development complicate or even negate success across these scales?
ReplyDeleteThe study conducted by Brenkert-Smith et al found that though respondents generally felt strong levels of place attachment to the local public lands, they did not encounter them in relation to community building. They also found low levels of participation in public meetings with the Forest Service regardless of their opinion on the Forsythe II fuels reduction project. How does this relate to the statement that “as a large public institution, the USFS is obligated to attend to public concerns” (16) and who is the public to whom our institutions are attending?
Tolman et al generalized that the public overall supports prescribed fire, especially if they are familiar with literature on its ecological effects. Yet their results show that in Colorado “support” moved substantially between Phase 1 and Phase 2 from managers using fire “at their discretion” to prescribed fire being used “infrequently and only in carefully selected areas” (562, Table 3). It seems unlikely that respondents became less familiar with Rx fire during this time. What caused such a shift?
The Brenkert-Smith study points out that a small portion of locals were opposed to the fuels treatments, yet they had an outsized voice in the process. This calls to mind other political issues where a limited number of people have an outsized impact on certain issues. An example being the NRA’s ability to block gun legislation ( https://youtu.be/_ECYMvjU52E?t=492 ). Why do you think this group’s voice is heard so loudly? In the NRA example, the simplicity of saying “No” may be part of the answer. Do you think the same thing applies here?
ReplyDeleteToman et al. 2014
Can you expect residents from vastly different environmental conditions to have the same perspective on fuel treatments (although there was broad agreement in survey responses)? Do fuel treatments like mechanical thinning and prescribed fire mean the same thing for the forest in the Minnesota, Arizona, and Oregon? It seems difficult to compare people’s perspectives on fuels treatments across such a range of locations because the forests and fire regimes are so different.
A throughline of much of our reading has been the importance of trust and relationship between the local land management agency and the WUI residents. The Toman study suggests that citizens want more meaningful involvement in the planning process. However, the Brenkert-Smith study illustrates the challenges of this approach. Do you think agencies should engage more in trust building exercises? Should outreach and engagement instead be outsourced to local NGOs (like the Whitebark Institute in Mammoth)?
The Cheng & Dale paper ends by describing three major barriers to the continued success of this project (no market for woody debris, a volatile funding source, and the project's administrative seat moving from the state capitol). However, authors, who all have worked at high levels of these organizations, admit there is very low likelihood of any of these things changing. If there is no way to change the fundamental setup of a project like this, including the knowledge that some years the funding simply won't be there, would it be better to redesign the project, or is it better to keep this project and choose to look at it as a jumping-off point for community organization (not letting the great be the enemy of the good)? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteSomething that really stood out to me in the Brenkert-Smith paper was the fact that over 75% of survey respondents had never or rarely participated in public forums. Later in the paper, the table describing place attachment variables shows that the variable with the least amount of residents' agreement is "place friendships." Could these two things be connected, and if they are, how? (Or if not, why not?)
My second question is on the same paper and same topic. The Forsythe II project was very divisive, and even with an organized and vocal opposition (which probably led to increased visibility of the project), many respondents to this survey still had no opinion and did not engage with local forums. Is it possible to increase community engagement with public meetings? If so, how? (I'm thinking about the public meetings I've attended, and I honestly shudder at the thought at attending another community meeting full of bad coffee, bad chairs and loud angry people. So I guess I'll start thinking about my own response to this question now!)
Toman et al. 2014 reported greater levels of uncertainty about prescribed fire and mechanical thinning treatments among residents of Wisconsin and Minnesota. What do you suspect is causing higher levels of uncertainty in theses areas and how can we ensure agencies in these area continue to work with citizens to gain there support?
ReplyDeleteCheng & Dale 2020 reported that WRRG for fiscal years 2013-2017 totaled over 13 million dollars yet only 32% of participants reported removal of woody biomass. Assuming the remaining participants did not remove any woody biomass, do you believe this is a good use of funding if most fuels were not completely removed? Should there be more follow up conducted by leading agencies evaluating WRRG activities as apposed to relying on self-reporting from grant awardee?
Brenkert & Smith et al. 2020 found that in the case of the Forsythe II project, opposition was outsized and did not represent "broader community views". In my own experience I have noticed that people who oppose an activity tend to go to greater efforts to voice their opinion. How can we encourage those who support fuels management projects, like Forsythe II, to voice their opinions to level of the opposition?
Toman et al. mentioned three waves of mailings were sent (1) a complete mail packet (2) a reminder postcard sent to non-respondents (3) a second mailing of complete packets to all who had not yet returned a survey. My question is if the researchers took into consideration that the individuals that didn't respond was due to not understanding the survey correctly? If they didn't understand completely this may have put a limitation of wanting to respond.
ReplyDeleteBrenkirt-Smith et al. mentioned they invited one participant from every household in the zip code area for the Nederland community. With this approach I assume this one participant speaks for the entire household? Does this take into account if there is a difference of opinion within the household? This could lead to others not feeling heard or represented.
Toman et. al.
ReplyDeleteA couple of things stood out to me in this article- the biggest thing is why didn’t 45% respond to the second survey? I kept thinking of the Abraham Wald diagram of the bullet holes on the plane, I want to know if there is more to be gleaned from the non-responses than the responses. Is there a way to use available data from other sources (census records, agency interactions such as complaints, court records, social media) to see what patterns there are among those that didn’t respond the second time. Given the stability of the results, perhaps there is a big missing piece that could help focus resources on impactful action.
A second area I was thinking about was the trust in agencies. It would be interesting to compare the ratings of trust in the federal land management agencies with that of more local agencies (state county etc.). Is there a pattern of mistrust across disciplines in government? Where do land management agencies rate when compared to trust in say municipal government, courts, infrastructure (water and power authorities etc.). It would be an interesting data point if there was a higher or lower degree of trust when compared. Perhaps the mistrust in authorities as you move west and away from tall buildings means that those numbers will be near impossible to bring up.
Cheng and Dale
Overall, I think there is a lot of merit in the adaptive governance concept. The fact that the researchers in this paper are involved in the program led me to read it as more of an after-action report than to think of it as unbiased research. They were well positioned to provide a report and explain what was happening, however I have some concerns that there is a conflict of interest that may lead them to paint the project in a favorable light.
What stood out to me is that the monitoring teams served as public outreach as well. When looking at the Toman et.al. paper they indicated that there was minimal exposure to management agencies. The use of the University’s Forest Restoration Institute was cited by Cheng and Dale as a way to span boundaries. Perhaps this can serve as an idea or model strategy for increasing positive interactions with land management. Could interagency teams (fuel, fire, timber, recreation, wildlife etc.) of land management agency, local authorities, and education lead to both better interactions between agencies as well as a good conduit for learning about public concerns and providing public education?
In the Brenkert-Smith et al. study, the two wildfire variables most associated with risk/damage to one’s property are ignition-related (human and natural) as opposed to being related to biophysical conditions/variables within the WUI. What does this say about how WUI residents might view themselves in relation to fire ecology? Do WUI residents view themselves as being adjacent to and not emplaced within the (fire) ecological footprint of forests?
ReplyDeleteStaying with the Brenkert-Smith study, I was genuinely struck by their finding that a “deep sense of one-ness with the natural environment” (pg. 13) was correlated with less support for the Forysthe II project. How specifically does the rhetoric of “oneness” and naturalness suggest opposition to a fuels reduction program? Is it opposition to specific mitigation practices or a more general opposition toward humans altering the “natural environment”?
Both the Toman et al and Brenkert-Smith et al studies highlight the lack of public engagement with management efforts, leading to majority or near-majority “don’t know” and “no opinion” responses. Yet there is evidence for broad acceptance of fuels treatment programs, including prescribed fire. These two things suggest that citizen-agency interactions are hampered by the forms (or lack) of those interactions rather than public apathy. Kate mentioned how our sense of community seems to die with stale coffee and bad chairs, so why not have these meetings at the local bar, brewery, or coffee shop? Maybe the space of these meetings matters?
Apologies to Alex for my late questions: I went a little too hard on President's Day.
Delete