We will continue to focus on efforts for "scaling up" wildfire adaptation this week with our discussion of landscape level management. Be prepared to talk about the various efforts implicated in our readings and think of how other policies and initiatives interact to influence landscape goals.
 |
| National Forest Foundation |
Please have your comments uploaded by Monday at noon. That will give our discussion leads time to summarize your excellent points.
I look forward to our next discussion.
Walpole et al describe three phases of collaboration: problem setting, direction setting and implementation. There is no fourth phase of monitoring, analyzing, reflecting upon, or reiterating what was implemented. What is needed (politically, economically, institutionally) to include this fourth phase, which seems so vital both to collaborative processes and to adaptive management?
ReplyDeletePonderosa pine ecosystems and their frequent, low-intensity fires are perhaps the most widely studied fire-prone landscape, but also the most publicly and politically palatable in terms of re-introducing fire. In contrast, high-severity fire is often viewed as “bad fire”, even in ecosystems historically adapted to it. As Abrams et al state, conceptualizations of landscape resilience need to be site-specific and may not include restoration to historical conditions. If historical conditions are no longer an appropriate model, and performance targets of acreage and board feet are rigid and outdated, what metrics, what measures, what qualities can tell us when a landscape (both social and ecological) has acquired resiliency?
Legal action was listed by McIver et al as one potential resource for states to recuperate suppression costs, thus underlining the idea that whoever ignites a fire is responsible for how that fire spreads through the landscape. Given the compounding factors of forest management, including previous suppressive actions, widespread resource extraction, contemporary settlement patterns, and climate change, is it fair to pin the financial burden of a fire on the one who lit the match (whether that is PG$E or a 15 year old child)?
The Abrams paper notes that bureaucratic infighting is a possible barrier to forest-level management (Abrams, 577). These challenges can include overworked employees, conflicting agendas, and policy supporting collaboration with groups who don't like or trust one another. However, these types of interpersonal conflicts within a management can be very difficult to study, involving a lot of emotional undercurrents and workplace politics that people may not want to chat with researchers (or anyone) about. How can lack of in-group trust within government agencies be successfully studied?
ReplyDeleteThe Walpole paper mentions prospect theory as a potential motivator for collaborative forest management groups (last page before bibliography). Prospect theory holds that people are more likely to take action on decisions framed as avoiding a loss, rather than achieving a gain. In these case studies, the "loss" would be the risk of lost forest health.
One critique of prospect theory is that many experiments trying to prove this theory don't have a mechanism to try and find out why or how study participants picked one prospect over another (Rossiter 2019). Because of this, researchers may be ascribing their own motives and thought processes to someone else's decision. Also, real-world decisions can be much messier than a single individual choosing between two cleanly separated options. Are these critiques applicable to the application of prospect theory to CFLRP groups trying to make collaborative choices? If so, what are some examples? If not, why don't these critiques apply here?
I've included the link of the paper I read to understand these critiques in case anyone's interested but it's not necessary for the question.
Rossiter 2019: https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.uidaho.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1002/cb.1779
ReplyDeleteMcIver et al
In the discussion around equity, they note that suppression costs on state lands represent the public paying for a public benefit but imply that it may not be equitable to have state costs for the protection of private land. Most municipal fire suppression is in private buildings (homes, businesses, etc.) with an expansion of the WUI wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that fire protection in the case of wildfire would follow a similar model? Perhaps the focus needs to be on reevaluating the fire response system to ensure it continues to reflect the current situation- for example, there may need to be an update in specific laws concerning state vs local jurisdiction in the case of wildfire.
Walpole et al
One of the points that stood out to me is prospect theory and that avoiding loss is a greater motivator than achieving a gain. Especially with overstretched budgets and agencies, there may not be any capacity to attempt to restore anything when collaborative effort needs to be built from the ground up. Perhaps the playbook should focus on creating a long-term (probably permanent) collaborative effort by starting with stopping loss, and once capacity has been built then pivot into creating a restoration strategy.
Abrams et al
There was a quote under adaptability and flexibility (pg 581) about the need for a trusted leader who allows for flexibility. I looked back at the undergraduate forestry curriculum for both U Idaho and U of Minnesota, There are policy and economics classes, U of M has an “environmental conflict management, leadership, and planning” course. Does there need to be a reworking of the curriculum for natural resource managers that has a greater emphasis on building relationships, leading, and collaborating? They talk about relying more on scientists, both agency and partners to inform decision making which leads me to think that perhaps a pivot to training future managers more on how to use resources and collaborate. Are agencies providing training on this?
McIver et al. 2021
ReplyDeleteOf the states included in this study, Utah had several strategies for tackling the wildfire problem that stood out. One I found interesting was their funding system requires counties/municipalities to take preventative measures if they want to receive suppression funding. Do you agree with this approach? Is it fair to impoverished rural counties who have little fiscal capacity? Could a similar system work at a national level?
Abrams et al. 2020
I thought the National Forest plan revisions studied here represented an incremental step forward in terms of planning for resilience and adaptive management (to varying degrees). Did you come away feeling hopeful about the USFS’s ability to incorporate the tenants of ecological restoration, climate change impacts, and resilient landscapes?
Walpole et al 2017
How should we think about defining historic conditions to inform restoration efforts on national forests? To what extent should human histories be incorporated into this vision? What do you think are realistic goals for the USFS in this context?
The South-central site seemed to be heavily influenced by a 2005 Forest Plan revision process that brought stakeholders together to create a vision of future management. This built relationships and trust between collaborative partners, but some of the responses suggested less engagement in the CFLRP program than the Forest Plan. Do you think a long collaboration process can have a hangover effect on participants? Does this matter?
McIver et al mentions that use of state general funds for fire suppression would reduce funding available for other government services. Should individual states make it a goal to increase their general fund before absorbing additional costs for wildfire suppression; what capacity do states have to do this?
ReplyDeleteWalpole et al reported that a majority of survey participants felt public participation was limited despite being a critical element of the collaborative process. How might the public be better included in the collaborative process? Are there some instances where public inclusion is unnecessary?
Abrams et al mentions that, despite human interests and land use being incorporated into planning, but disconnected with discussion of resilience. Do you believe human interests and land use is something that should be considered when planning resilience? What might some outcomes be of not including those aspects?
The Walpole paper mentioned a total of nine participants from the PNW site A and seven participants from PNW site B were interviewed. These interviews lasted over an hour on average. Would the small number of participants allow for a longer period for interviews? This may help the participants feel better understood/comfortable to voice their opinions than in a shorter time-span interview.
ReplyDeleteAbrams et al. included the resilience that may be compatible with indigenous worldviews focused on reciprocal and balances approach to living with and using land, water, and other elements. In my tradition we were taught to respect the land that has been given to us, as time has gone by the use of indigenous methodology have been introduced/practiced. What are your opinions of the inclusion of indigenous methodology?
Also, thank you for the link to understand the critiques Kate! I had to reread this a few times to understand.
Abrams et al. mention the need for greater managerial discretion and flexibility while at the same time calling for “long-term processes of interaction, collaboration, and relationship-building” (pg. 585). Is this bureaucratic copiumspeak or can we point to examples from previous readings/case studies where the two strategies worked in concert to produce a desired outcome.
ReplyDeleteFor McIver et al.: Without a breakdown of burned acreage into private- or state-owned, how can the study fully account for equity considerations? In Idaho, for example, timber companies are exempt from sales or use tax, which, given the volume of operations, is a significant amount of revenue not going into the general fund. It strikes me as an equity problem if a significant amount of these funds is spent on fire suppression on private timber lands, which would be getting the service at a discount.
Walpole et al. (2017) write that “[a] second main finding was that restoration can provide a meaningful common cause.” Is having a cause or a cause-oriented approach—something productively ambiguous like ‘restoration’—different than the goal-oriented approach identified by Abrams as being a potential hindrance to achieving resilience?
Walpole
ReplyDeleteWhy is the southeast so much more accepting of fire than the west? Is it just that fire is generally less resistant to control in the west, or does the public have a better understanding of fire’s role in the ecosystem and potential for resource benefit?
All three sites cite a lack of public participation in the CFLRP process and public participation generally being limited to the public comment periods required by the NEPA process, but also describe participation by environmentalist and conservationist group. What other avenues can be used to increase public involvement beyond including interest groups in the process?
Abrams
With aggressive fire suppression being the safe, low-risk option, how can we convince fire managers to take on additional risk by managing wildfire? What would a risk-sharing system, in which land management agencies shared responsibility of the decision to not immediately suppress a fire, look like?
McIver
McIver et al discuss the equity of tax-funded state resources being used to protect private resources. Why is it so rare that additional fees are imposed on property owners in high risk areas as is the case in Oregon? What can be done to make this situation more equitable?