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.
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.
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.
I look forward to our next discussion.
Despite the assertions of this and previous weeks’ readings that human adaptation to wildfire is complex and must reflect local socio-ecological conditions, “fire adaptation” seems to mean three things no matter the location: home-hardening, the reduction of hazardous fuels and wildfire suppression potential. While the proportional need for each of these may indeed vary across locales, are we overcomplicating the conversation?
ReplyDeleteHow does the focus on local actions as “fire adaptation” intersect with larger factors contributing to extreme wildfire events? Are there any examples of communities that are considering climate change adaptation as a part of fire adaptation? Does a landscape of “resources” and “fuels” perpetuate an ontological paradigm of substitutability and socio-ecological extraction/injustice?
Kelly et al propose that polycentric governance systems might best create wildfire resilience through locally operationalized nodes of power, funding transferability and functional redundancy. Especially important in the Ashland project was the presences of a local, trusted NGO, Lomakatsi, who, either directly or through sub-contractors, implemented a great portion of the fuels reduction work (included Rx fire), without the bureaucratic encumbrances of the USFS. Could rural, volunteer firefighting forces be proactively included in (ie, paid!?) fuels reduction work through ecological and prescribed fire?
When describing the Ashland All-Lands Management project in the Kelly et al paper, authors note that a particular constraint was bureaucratic complexity, which led to some slow or unfinished projects and a loss of trust. However, authors also listed functional redundancy as a positive aspect of the All-Lands Management strategy. Is this type of managerial complexity avoidable, or is it necessary?
ReplyDeleteIn the "Incorporating Social Diversity into Wildfire Management" paper, authors write that the possible continuum of WUI community archetypes is very complex, and a community could hold many aspects of differing archetypes. Is it possible to ensure that land managers use a tool like this with a healthy amount of flexibility, or could this end in communities being categorized incorrectly or interpreted too simply for ease of plan-writing? What could be done to prevent this?
Authors of "Exploring the Influence of Local Social Context" write that some areas, such as Bull River, are characterized by a strong sense of independence and a lack of interest in government or HOA programs. They write that, while the quantitative results of the research show that Firewise is seen as a positive program across the board in all areas surveyed, its introduction in areas like Bull River would need to be highly modified and it would need to be informal to keep people from becoming upset. What would this "informal" implementation look like?
Throughout the Kelly 2019 paper they focus on the polycentric systems for wildfire governance; more specifically 3 ALM projects. I wonder how others understand/determine if polycentric systems are the best or worst ideas?
ReplyDeleteIn the Paveglio 2018 paper there is the mentioning of incorporating local ecological knowledge; I wondered if the amount of knowledge a local individual has will determine the outcome of the situation? Would it be better to find an individual with the most amount of local knowledge?
Referring to Paveglio et al 2019, do our nation’s current wildfire mitigation policies allow/encourage development of community level adaptations?
ReplyDeleteCommunity zoning restrictions could be one way to limit development in fire-prone areas of the WUI. I have personally seen these zoning restrictions in McCall, ID undergo modification as new construction continues to add pressure to the boundaries of residential zoning. Can zoning restrictions be relied upon for setting limitation to development in the WUI if local planning and zoning commissioners do not uphold zoning boundaries.
The All-Lands Management approach discussed by authors of Kelly et. al appears to be an effective way of enacting wildfire mitigation across jurisdictional boundaries under a system of polycentric governance. Do you think ALM could be used to implement mitigation in the WUI? What limitation and/or conveniences might exist for conducting ALM in more developed areas?
Are some polycentric systems of government already in place that could be helpful for implement ALM in the WUI? HOA comes to mind for me.
Authors in the Paveglio et. al 2018 article seem champion the Working Landscape communities’ ability to create a FAC in comparison to High Amenity communities. Property size in High Amenity communities can be a barrier to upscaling wildfire mitigation from fuel breaks meant to protect valuable assets to creating a greater fire adapted ecosystem. Could the US Forest service utilize their ranger stations to create pathways to an FAC and utilize their land ownership to upscale mitigation efforts in the WUI?
Paveglio et al. 2018a
ReplyDeleteHow should we define “community agreement” around wildfire adaptation and collective management options? What level of disagreement is okay? Table 1 outlines nine different categories of considerations/actions for communities to consider and agree upon. The sheer number of topics to discuss and agree upon would seem to make the task almost insurmountable for a diverse community in the WUI.
Kelly et al. 2019
The Middle Klamath River Communities Project stands out as less successful than either of the Oregon projects. Given the overwhelming amount of USFS land in this project, does this area warrant extra funds for forest restoration treatment? Should projects of this nature focus on areas with a patchwork of property ownership like the other examples? Did the fact that the Karuk tribe does not own their ancestral land contribute to their lack of involvement and ultimate failure of the project?
Paveglio et al. 2019
What is more important, adoption of some wildfire risk reduction practices, or the specific practices adopted? For example, this is very simplified but, does it matter that Bull River adopted active forest management while Sun Valley chose zoning laws? Are they both equally effective as long as they are meaningfully adopted by the community?
High amenity communities generally have higher property values. In last week’s paper, Wibbenmeyer discussed how higher property value WUI communities also tend to have higher structure densities, and high structure density means that structures will act like another fuel type when experiencing an active wildfire. Can this fact be used to encourage more work in the HIZ? Would education be seen as unnecessary fear mongering or lead to a “boy who cried wolf” interpretation? (Paveglio 2018)
ReplyDeleteDo communities like Bull River expect a full fire suppression/community protection response in the event that a wildfire threatens their area? Could federal or state fire protection be an “opt-in” protection that necessitates some sort of community protection plan? (Paveglio 2019)
In the Ashland example (Kelly 2019), USFS capacity was cited as a major impediment to successful project implementation. The USFS is facing a staffing crisis across the west and in 2021 Congressional intervention was required to take action on this issue. That stopgap has not been especially effective, is set to expire this year, and no measurable progress has been made toward finding a permanent solution. If U.S. government agencies cannot be relied upon to maintain necessary staffing levels, can state agencies, local government organizations, and NGOs fill that gap? Will federal staffing levels act as a bottleneck to effective fire adaptation? (Kelly 2019)