 |
| Idaho Capital Sun |
We will be discussing the intersection of planning and wildfire risk management this week. A number of you have brought up planning efforts during our past classes, so I look forward to discussing it in depth. Please enter at least three discussion questions based upon the assigned readings for the week. Remember that the readings are intended to get you thinking about the broader topic for the week. Don't be afraid to pose questions that reach beyond the readings or prompt us all to think creatively about the topic.
Comments and questions are due by noon on Monday before class. This provides enough time for our discussion leads to synthesize questions. Please enter comments and questions even if you are leading discussion for the week.
See you all on Wednesday.
1. How can network weaving help overcome internal policy coordination barriers? How might bureaucratic processes be better shaped to enhance policy coordination - In what contexts does formal bureaucracy function most effectively? How frequently do agencies seek internal social acceptability for proposed policies?
ReplyDelete2. Why do individuals struggle to engage with complex systems of thinking, and what aspects of collaboration facilitate easier comprehension? What types of communities respond best to collaborative governance models, and why?
3. In what ways might framing wildfires as a "crisis" hinder the development of long-term, sustainable policy solutions? Can public buy-in be achieved for large-scale regulations?
Mockrin 2020
ReplyDeleteThe paper discusses how land use planning to mitigate wildfires, which is typically carried out by local municipalities, is not federally mandated. However, the federal government is often a respondent to wildfire events and other disasters, so they feel an impact. This impact may be lessened if proper mandates were put in place. Therefore, how do you think we can bridge the gap between local municipalities and the federal government so mandates would look like a beneficial investment and course of action?
Paveglio and Shriner 2024
The paper discusses risk transmission and essentially how one’s inaction or action may influence those around them. Through simulations that represent fire behavior, fire managers may be able to pose their results to those who have a high chance of transmitting risk to others. Do you believe that if proper mitigation actions are not taken when individuals are exposed to this information, and a wildfire then negatively impacts others because of it, that they may be partly liable?
Hamilton 2024
The paper poses the idea that groups of individuals or even pairs may better conceptualize feedback loops than one individual. It would be interesting to see the results of such a study where groups or pairs have to conceptualize together. How do you think this may be enacted regarding the study framework? Furthermore, do you think that greater conceptualization stems from more ideas being shared via more individuals or one individual being pushed to think greater than their own views? Perhaps both?
ReplyDelete1- Paveglios
I like this paper recognized the need for localized mitigation tailor fit to the community and their culture.I would like to see several mitigation models for managers to take into communities and based off the culture they find, they can use one as a foundation to build on. I also liked how it accounted for peoples past wildfire exposure to how it shaped their current actions. Can we figure out a way to get those people more included at the meetings to share first hand local knowledge that others locals will take more to heart? I think so, based on this paper.
2-Mackrin
I didn’t see anything too surprising in the paper. Meaning, based on my personal knowledge, I can say I have a working understanding of these findings in a different context. I think a good look at sociology would remind us people are creatures of habit and mostly leery of new people and any knew tech/information they bring. I wonder if simplifying the process for mitigation help and taking out a lot of the “lawyer terms” would allow more people to adapt/adopt the suggested planning & regs? Maybe even putting things in that make the landowner feel protected and not “overlorded”?
3-Hamilton
This paper drove home the thought I got from the Mockrin paper, that cultural & past factors are what give the wildfire risk perceptions but here It specifically looked at the feedback loops that are formed from it. Is it the “old hats” helping others get a better understanding or is it the” wrong but louder” group dominating? How can we learn from that dynamic to shift away from misunderstandings when many see it and prioritize the loops differently? (Ie:differnetly, gov officials, policy makers, fire pros)
Hamilton et al. 2024:
ReplyDeleteI really liked the cognitive map from Figure 2. I also liked how they brought up the concept of the alternative stable state theory. It got me thinking about state and transition models and how it would/could be interesting to incorporate state and transition models into the cognitive map and feedback loop mindset. These are clearly very dynamic, complex relationships. With these feedback loops, is it possible the undesirable feedback loop exists because a threshold (S&T model) was surpassed?
Mockrin et al. 2020:
Looking at Figure 1, the model seems straight-forward and simple. Easy enough to implement right? Clearly not. What missing link exists? Is there something not mentioned that is creating resistance in the model? Is there a link mentioned that you believe is not ‘in compliance’ or doing its’ part? How can this be remedied?
Paveglio and and Shriner-Beaton 2024:
How can we effectively create widespread programs and standards when this study (and others) have shown just how incredibly variable peoples support/opposition/perspectives are? What’s the solution? You can’t treat everyone as a whole, but you also can’t treat everyone as an individual. So how do we foster a sense of support to encourage everyone to “drink the Kool-Aid?”
Mockrin et al. 2020:
ReplyDelete-Thoughts: I thought this was the most interesting paper yet in this class this semester, I came up with 10+ questions spurred by this paper alone and relating it to on-the-ground applicability. Here are a few:
1) How can we ensure that CWPPs are more applicable out on the ground in communities (rather than reiterative, seen as just a checkbox, etc.)?
2) How can we combat the issue of “Resources and capacity were seen as a limitation to creating, implementing, and enforcing plans and regulations.”? Particularly in rural and tribal communities where resource staff may consist of one or a few people, how can we better support these communities?
3) “In a number of sites respondents raised concerns about economic impacts of wildfire-related regulations, specifically how such efforts might negatively impact real estate development.” How can we mitigate this concern or ones similar to it? Particularly in communities that are overall heavily resistant to any kind of change taking place?
4) How might an area’s culture (and cultural conflicts/opposition/disparities) influence the larger acceptance of natural resource management and policy? (This was brought up in reference to the Caughlin, NV in Reno, NV in the comparison of its histories and countercultures of both the Wild West and Burning Man).
Hamilton et al. 2024: I overall had a tough time getting into this paper, especially after being so engaged with the previous one and its draws to applicability. So my question here is, how can we make studies like this more applicable to the field and fire managers? So often, there are two different worlds when it comes to wildland fire- the field/operations/experience versus science/research. As wildfire occurrence, severity, intensity, etc. increases with climate change, an uptick in growth in the WUI, etc. etc. etc.- how can we ensure that there is crossover and real applicability between these worlds and work isn’t just lost in translation?
Paveglio and Shriner-Beaton 2024: How can we tailor larger programs centered around wildfire risk mitigation to not only bear in mind differences between communities, but account for those differences while also balancing big-picture goals for the larger landscape? How can we both account for individual needs and opinions while also prioritizing the larger community, area, and landscape goals?
Paveglio:
ReplyDeleteCould we implement policy to grandfather all existing structures in the WUI, but future structures must meet certain building code requirements to be resident or adaptive to wildfire?
Hamilton:
What is the difference between perceived and amplified feed back loops? What affect does environmental shock have on amplified feedback loops?
Mockrin:
Is the first step to fire mitigation infrastructure and road development for the safety of both fire fighters and citizens? Should developing this infrastructure in WUI communities be more of a main priority than policy change?
1. Would it be possible to implement programs or regulations specific to part-time homeowners? Or specific to new construction? This might not be enough to make an impact everywhere, but in some places with lots of growth in the “bedroom community” segment, regulations governing the construction of new homes/neighborhoods might be supported locally and could at least ensure that there is some level of mitigation in areas with lots of new homes on smaller parcels.
ReplyDelete2. Relatedly, it seems like there is a belief that growth and development are key priorities in many places (Mockrin notes that this sentiment among land use planners may make them reluctant to modify planning and regulation). Is it an American idea that cities/towns constantly need to be growing? Is it part of the reason why nobody supports regulations (if we implement building codes nobody will move here?). This is a really general question but the readings this week just made me wonder how any land use and building regulations get passed anywhere, ever?
3. From a practical standpoint, what is the best way to engage part-time homeowners in collaborative efforts/community dialogue/etc. regarding fire mitigation? It just seems like a challenge to get people involved who aren’t around all the time.
Paveglio and Shriner-Beaton 2024 - Have similar patterns of disparity in wildfire mitigation efforts between part-time and full-time residents been documented in other regions prone to wildfires, and what lessons can be derived from those cases to inform strategies in Kittitas County?
ReplyDeleteMockrin et al. 202 - I really enjoyed reading this paper. Including the comments and quotes included in it, they gave a lot to think about and helped me understand the different challenges from a more realistic perspective. The reading mentions privacy and independence as reasons why people choose to move to different locations.
This makes me wonder, does the strong emphasis on privacy and autonomy negatively impact wildfire mitigation regulations, or can it also have positive aspects? While resistance to regulations may hinder enforcement of defensible space requirements or evacuation mandates, could a sense of independence also encourage proactive, community-led mitigation efforts?
Hamilton 2024 - This paper offers a fresh take on wildfire management by showing how our personal beliefs and collective actions shape the way we respond. It’s fascinating to see how both setbacks and progress create a cycle that influences our approach to wildfires. The focus on collaboration is a great reminder that tackling these challenges isn’t just about policies and technology, it’s about people coming together, sharing knowledge, and working toward solutions.
Mockrin:
ReplyDelete1) We know that individuals, especially in rural areas, don't like being told what to do. What would a bottom-up approach look like? Who would conduct the initial interactions to see what the community needs? Not every rural community will have the same resources.
2) They describe policy coordination with agencies like the USDA Forest Service or The National Conservancy to provide technical assistance and networking. While these seem like incredibly useful tools, if there are people who don't see fire as an issue, how can we get them to use these programs?
Paveglio & Shriner-Beaton:
3) In the methods section, why was "or" used when compiling data of fuels treatments in the county? Would it have been too much to include completed and planned fuels treatments?
Hamilton ’24:
ReplyDeleteStudy participants were influential stakeholders in the community and were all regarded as experts. Would studying non-expert perception of feedback loops add value to this research? Should non-experts be incorporated in collective decision-making as well?
Mockrin ’20:
If a local jurisdiction is not interested in land use planning should it still be pursued or mandated? If so, at what level? Could withholding federal funding or wildfire suppression resources from these areas be used as an incentive to drive compliance with or implementation of land use planning practices?
Paveglio and Shriner-Beaton ’24:
The authors found that perspectives varied greatly across individuals, even within a single county. How is it possible for local governments to serve the varied preferences of their constituents? Is a regulatory approach even viable given the strength of private property regimes in the US?