 |
| istockphoto.com |
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. 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.
I look forward to talking with you on Wednesday.
Ghasemi et al found that “place attachment” positively corresponds to homeowners’ intended fire mitigation efforts. They use the term interchangeably with “home attachment” and the phrasing of their questions might refer to either the home/house (ie, the material structures, possessions and comforts and the emotional connections of these physical items to geographically and/or temporally distant times and places), and/or to the home/community (ie, the social, ecological, and material structures and relationships that are geographically proximate and specific). Would nuancing this term to understand emotional attachment relative to house and place and community be helpful in terms of understanding and implementing fire adaptations at community/landscape scales?
ReplyDeleteI would like to think further with “place attachment” as discussed in Ghasemi et al and in the McCaffrey article (citing studies in Australia). How does place attachment relate to the findings in Olsen et al that inhabitants of fire-prone landscapes are actually good observers of the landscape and of fire hazard proximate to their home? How can this be leveraged to help keep long-term residents in place, given the increasingly expansive (and expensive) WUI?
Flint et al found that postcard images of devastating fire did not increase recipients’ information-seeking about fire-risk reduction. They postulate that it may be due to the negative imagery or due to low perceived efficacy of possible risk-reduction efforts. For anyone who watches news media, devastating images of wildfire are standard. Fires become news when they imperil dozens or hundreds of homes, are spreading at spectacular rates due to weather and fuel conditions, are creating firestorms, spewing embers for miles and smoke to Manhattan. This focus on devastating fire surely reduces perceived efficacy of clearing out a few bushes around a house. How could more images of “good fire” (especially burning in proximity to structures) be mobilized? Would they have a different effect?
The demographics of survey respondents in the Ghasemi paper were overwhelmingly older, white, male, educated, and high income. The Forests surveyed (Angeles, Cleveland, and Los Padres) also over-represent the formal subdivision community archetype and are very close to major population centers. Should these findings be applied to other contexts?
ReplyDeleteFlint et al. discuss a fatalism effect that may discourage homeowners from taking part in mitigation practices. Could framing fire adaptation in landscape scale (Olsen) or within the larger climate change picture increase the fatalism effect? Would shifting focus to the home ignition zone be more effective?
Olsen et al. cited several limitations to their data, but did not include their fire behavior/probability metrics as one of these. Is conditional flame length and burn probability within 1 km of a point a useful metric? This 1km radius seems somewhat arbitrary, and I am not sure that mean predicted flame length in that area is indicative of anything.
In the Olsen et al paper, "Examining the influence of biophysical conditions...", authors discuss possible responder biases to their survey regarding the paper topic and determine that their concern about bias is "minimal," though they state that only single-unit dwellings were sampled and that the sample overrepresented older, educated, more wealthy people. Does everyone agree that the bias is minimal despite this statement? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteAuthors of the Ghasemi et al paper note that a study done in Alberta showed that homeowners will discount wildfire risk if mitigation is too expensive - or if it disconnects them from nature. The first problem can probably be tackled in a slightly more straightforward way through adding funding. But the second problem, the disconnection from nature, seems a little trickier. What are some strategies that might overcome this problem? Is it even possible to override some communities' deep interest in privacy?
The Flint et al paper explores the validity of the belief that frightening images increase engagement and action, ultimately showing that these images can actually decrease knowledge-seeking and mitigation efforts among people living in high-risk areas. Knowing this, what are some possible next steps to take to ensure that these images aren't used as frequently? Or should there be more studies done to confirm the accuracy of this study first?
Ghasemi et al. found that among homeowners with low wildland fire experience trust in agency competence might result in fewer mitigation actions. With the ongoing influx of (what are likely) low experience/familiarity homeowners to the WUI, this suggests that targeted education can play a key role in getting buy-in for personal mitigation. Would it possible to make Firewise education mandatory for new homeowners in fire-prone areas? Some kind of certification program attached to (and maybe incentivized through) home insurance or property tax? If Idaho can become one of eleven states to adopt mandatory bowhunter education, I think it can find a way to do this.
ReplyDeleteThinking about place attachment in relation to Olsen et al. on biophysical conditions, personal fuels reduction actions are often yoked to the aesthetically charged and place attachment-informed practice of landscaping. For example, my grandma will get rid of a few hazardous trees from time to time, but heaven forbid, not THAT tree—that’s the shade tree where grandpa used to sit. How might these attachments be shifted toward a more fire/risk-informed aesthetic—one that actually invites aesthetic joy or pleasure? What comes to mind is the example of Southern California where a landscaping sea change is underway from water-intensive gardens to xeriscaping.
Negative images of wildfire in the media might also reinforce narratives of defiance and renewal—of building back bigger and better, but not always smarter. I think part of the problem is the very notion of wildland fire as a 'natural disaster' that is completely beyond human agency. To combat this, what if the postcards/imagery took a more proactive outlook that showed people working with/managing fire as opposed to becoming its victims? Just realized this question has already been (better) posed by Sasha.
Ghasemi et al:
ReplyDeleteI found it really interesting that increased trust in an agency decreased inexperienced homeowners intentions to mitigate risks… and then the chaser of experience with wildfire decreased trust in agencies. It feels like a lot of pressure to get things right, and at the same time perhaps trust that someone is going to come in and save them is only a form of giving up.
Further the case being in California with a higher frequency of fires kept the idea that another fire was close. This makes me wary of translating some of the findings related to experience to other parts of the country with traditionally lower fire return intervals. If we want to put good fire on the land after years of suppression, we will likely need these mitigation activities more than ever as the landscape recovers from recent fires.
The study discussed the limitation of being conducted while climate change concern by the Federal government was in its infancy. The authors predicted the threat perception to increase. Is that a realistic prediction? In a climate of political polarization and the possibility of identity with ideologies that reject climate change would that also influence their interest in taking mitigating action?
The managing communication from agencies was my biggest takeaway. Managing expectations, coupled with clear consistent (across the agency at any given time) messaging from agencies seem like good policy. Increasing the public communication training and abilities of all agency personnel bottom to top (and really especially at the bottom- where most interactions between the agency and individuals are) may provide the best way forward. Agencies should be finding every way to build and maintain trust, especially when using adaptive management because you may have to change the messaging over time, possibly even contradict previous messages (looking at you Smokey).
Flint et al:
I think one question that is really missing- if we want to have fire adapted communities, in many cases that will mean more (hopefully good) fire. Could we only be making more work for ourselves using negative imagery of fire? I really feel like we would have the best long term success in having fire presented as a good, or at least neutral process that we need to prepare for and respect, but not necessarily have a general fear of. Fear seems limiting, and we need to have as many options available to us as we can.
Olsen et al:
In the discussion it was noted that homeowners may have good local knowledge of conditions and events. They also noted the possibility that if someone’s neighbor mitigates, they may think that is enough to reduce their risk. That stuck out to me as a red flag for a community that would be hard to work in to reduce risk, specifically if this holds true it would produce conflicts among neighbors that would need to be overcome in order to encourage collective action.
The overall idea of having- essentially a model of homeowner behavior based on biophysical conditions seems like if it can be “accurate enough” it would be helpful to areas with less availability of resources available to do more in depth assessment. It made me think of fire behavior fuel models, you may have to just make general assumptions if you don’t have the resources for in depth monitoring and customization of fuel models in an area. Its not what you want, but it at least provides the means for an educated guess.
Ghasami et all mentioned that "as an indicator of homeowners' emotional bond with their homes, home attachment may play a role in risk perception and mitigation" I wondered how would you gain that individuals/families trust when it comes to preventative actions? Would you need to spend more time with these individuals to gain that trust and make them feel comfortable with your desired plan? I would imagine that these individuals who have a strong connection to their home would need to have complete trust in the individuals sharing their preventative action plans.
ReplyDeleteOlsen et al. mentioned sending a survey focusing on actor groups and land areas where wildfire risk was measurable and wildfire was transmittable and model-able; however excluded homes in urban areas. I wondered if this was an appropriate sample size to their research, would it have been better to include the urban areas? Also, I wondered if everyone who received a survey completely understood the purpose and the the questions that were asked. Was there an individual to contact if there wasn't a clear understanding?
“Fear appeals tend to work best when accompanied by high perceived efficacy, or effective and feasible options for responding to the threat” Flint et al. (2022).
ReplyDeleteThe findings in this paper called to mind an earlier article on the effectiveness of Home Ignition Zone treatment. Do you think that presenting information regarding the importance and efficacy of making your home more fire resistant would be enough to change people’s actions from fear induced apathy to more willingness to act?
The population studied in Olsen et al. (2017) are long term residents of the WUI, suggesting they may fall into certain archetypes and have characteristic tendencies for who they trust, what actions and programs they value, etc. Did you get a sense that one archetype was dominant given the responses/findings of this study? Based on the counties surveyed, I would expect Deschutes and Lake counties to have fairly different archetypes. Would breaking respondents into groups based on location be a useful exercise?
What does it say about the fire community, that managers generally thought landowners did not know/recognize the biophysical conditions of high wildfire risk – and they were obviously wrong? Or was the study (Gordon et al. 2012) where that information came from just wrong (Travis)?