Search results

Wildfire researchers have typically focused on the formal social relationships and organizational structures of community and community leadership in analyzing fire preparedness and planning. This may be reasonable given the policy positions of natural resource agencies charged with management of wildfires on large public lands, particularly in the American West. When fires are allowed to burn on public lands, there are inherent risks to communities located in the path of the burn. Formal relationships between federal and state agencies and local communities (particularly with local government leaders and other people in positions of authority and power), therefore, are critical in maintaining clear communications, in reducing potential dangers, and in providing appropriate responses when wildfire dangers occur. The scholarly research in this area has a clearly applied focus, and much of it also has a “top-down” orientation that reflects the resource agency funding that underwrites this work. The relevance is clear: resource managers are charged to identify persons and groups “with a stake” in the outcome of resource management policies, and to evaluate the outcomes of agency-designed educational and outreach programs for affected publics.

The law of catastrophic wildfire prevention and response in the Mediterranean member states of the European Union stands in stark contrast to that of common law nation states such as Australia and the United States. This is due primarily to the higher levels of reciprocal moral and legal obligations between governments and citizens established in various sources of European law. Focusing on the relationship between the EU, Spain, and the Autonomous Community of Catalonia within Spain, this chapter describes these three legal frameworks as they are nested within each other, followed by some case law examples of these laws in action. We compare and contrast the philosophical assumptions underlying the utilitarian cost–benefit approach to regulatory justification used in the United States with the precautionary principle model emblematic of the European Union, the member state of Spain, and its Autonomous Community of Catalonia. Regardless of approach, protection of the public health, safety, and welfare will only be as robust and effective as the government agencies that have that responsibility, and the degree of cooperation with those agencies of the citizens they serve.

The paper employs ethnographic interviews, a quantitative and qualitative data analysis of publicly accessible data and literature review.

With drought conditions expected to worsen in at-risk areas thus amplifying wildfire likelihood, this case explores the organizational and natural dynamics involved with wildfire management. The case engages students to explore the interactions between wildfire, wildland firefighters and agency organizations drawing from the natural resource dependence theory within a sustainability context. When completing the discussion questions, students are challenged to explore how organizations can use discursive closures to eliminate conflict and control meaning surrounding potentially controversial and politicized topics such as wildfire management.

This interdisciplinary case would be appropriate for undergraduate and graduate students in business and STEM classes. Optimal classes include organizational behavior, organizational communication and sustainability. Other appropriate classes include strategic management, applied business decisions, public relations, public policy, crisis management and for corporate training purposes.

Social science research is used to support the formulation of natural resource management decisions with accurate and timely information. Due to risk and potential impacts, this is important in wildland fire management. The purpose of this paper is to identify the respondent perceptions of a natural disturbance agent's impact on fire management in Colorado and Wyoming.

The research methodology included a self-administered questionnaire completed by a random sample of respondents in three study locations adjacent to national forests. A quantitative analysis was conducted to identify attitudes about fuels management (prescribed fire) and beliefs about fire and fire management.

Respondents viewed prescribed fire favorably and they understand the natural role of fire on the landscape. While results suggest respondents support management of forest conditions to decrease the effects of a wildfire, they do not feel that individuals have a right to expect their home to be protected from fire by land managers, nor do they agree with restricting home building near national forest land.

Future research should continue the longitudinal assessment of attitudes toward prescribed fires, incorporating respondent distance to the national forest or identifying respondents living within the wildland-urban interface.

This paper illustrates how applied, social science research can meet the needs of agencies and public officials. Results of this paper have been presented to state and federal forestry officials, and members of an executive-level task force in Colorado studying wildfire insurance and forest health.

This research aims to examine the wildfire vulnerability of part‐time and full‐time residents in the wildland‐urban interface (WUI) of Teton County, Wyoming. Are part‐time residents creating more of a vulnerability to the community because they do not live in the community all year, they have limited experience with wildfires, and they perceive Firewise activities as not being effective mitigation practices?

Data collection took place via a survey that inquired about respondents past wildfire experiences, if they do Firewise activities, and how effective they feel these wildfire home protection activities are. Responses were analyzed by Chi‐squared and t‐tests where appropriate.

The results of this study indicate that part‐time residents have the same past wildfire experiences and perceptions of Firewise activities, and do similar Firewise activities as full‐time residents. This suggests that these communities in Teton County may be more homogenous in their vulnerability than other wildfire communities.

Because of the limited geographic scope, results cannot be generalized for the entire county, the state of Wyoming, or other wildfire‐prone residential areas. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to investigate other WUI areas.

This research suggests that local and federal agencies in and near these communities talk to the residents of wildland‐interface communities and help them become less vulnerable to the wildfire hazard.

This research adds to the limited know of wildfire‐urban interface vulnerability and perceptions. It is significant because this interface will expand as amenity migration into these natural areas continues to occur.

Community-based fire management (CBFiM) integrates community action with the standard elements of fire management and mitigation, such as prescribed fire (managed beneficial fires for reducing hazardous fuel loads, controlling weeds, preparing land for cultivation, reducing the impact of pests and diseases, etc.), mechanical fuel treatment, defensible space planning, wildfire awareness and prevention, preparedness planning, and suppression of wildfires. In developed examples of CBFiM, communities are empowered to have effective input into land and fire management and problem solving and to self regulate to respond to fire and other emergencies. Its premise is that local people usually have most at stake in the event of a harmful fire, so they should clearly be involved in mitigating these unwanted events.

This book is divided into four parts: (1) Institutions and policy, (2) The economics of hazards, (3) Community involvement, and (4) Management and ecology. The first section contains four chapters that cover the issue of wildfire from historical and institutional perspectives. “Forest fire history: learning from disaster” by Roger Kennedy (Chapter 2) addresses the pressures and politics giving rise to the current situation. “Fire Policy in the Urban–Wildland Interface in the United States: What are the Issues and Possible Solutions?” (Chapter 3) by Scott Stephens and Brandon Collins provides a summary of the problems associated with wildfire hazards in UWI communities, discusses fuels-treatment options for local governments and property owners, and analyzes challenges to planning, drawing on experiences from Australia. “Wildfire hazard mitigation as “safe” smart growth” (Chapter 4) by Robert Paterson looks at how smart growth principals are being adapted to fire-safe land use planning and zoning, including a discussion of the role of regional coordination and state-level planning requirements. “Practical and institutional constraints on adopting wide-scale prescribed burning: lessons from the mountains of California” (Chapter 5) by Kurt Menning details the problems of fuel accumulation due to suppression, the potential power of prescribed burning as a management tool, and the social and regulatory obstacles to implementing wide-scale prescribed burning programs.

This study aims to further understand the factors contributory to fire occurrences in two semi-arid regions in the American Southwest, Clark County in Nevada and Maricopa and Pinal Counties in Arizona.

Statistical and geographic information system analyses were employed to examine the spatial and temporal relationships of various natural and human-caused factors with fire incidences.

Angström fire danger index, average amount of rainfall one month prior, extent of forests and grasslands, and proximities to secondary roads and population centers have significant relationships with fire events.

The importance of the factors contributory to fire occurrence is site-specific even in areas with similar climatic regimes and varies among different geographic regions; as such, researchers will need to conduct specific investigation of each study area.

The findings of this study can be instrumental in facilitating fire managers to derive more informed strategies in fire prevention and management.

While there are many studies on fire, most of them are conducted in wet regions with a lot of vegetative cover; not much work is done on arid areas. This paper considered and compared the spatial and temporal relationships of a wide range of natural and human-caused factors with fire events in two semi-arid areas. The intent was to assess the relative importance of these factors in areas even with similar climatic regimes. As our world is facing unprecedented changes in terms of climate and population growth, it is paramount to have an enhanced understanding of the impacts of these changes on fire regimes. The study areas are hot and dry, and they are located in the wildland–urban interfaces with rapid population growth and urbanization; as such, the research findings may contribute to existing literature.

The urban–wildland interface (UWI) poses a series of challenges to both rural and urban communities in the United States. Some efforts have been developed to promote the use of fire-resistant building materials and creation of defensible space; few comprehensive laws address the threat of external ignitions on structures. Most problems associated with the private side of the UWI are centered on land planning methods. Communities and counties must be encouraged to take more active roles in wildfire protection and this will require a fundamentally new method of land planning and review authority. Without substantial changes in land planning, we will continue to experience large losses of structures and life in the UWI.

Modern emergency management policy is built around the concepts of shared responsibility and the development of resilient communities. Drawing on the Australian context, this chapter argues that giving effect to these policy directions will require negotiation between stakeholders and an inevitable trade in values, interests, and resources. The chapter identifies an apparent contradiction at the heart of modern disaster management: that improvements in establishing professional emergency and risk management services may have reduced the capacity of individuals and local communities to take responsibility for disaster preparation and response.