scholarly journals Operationalising homeowner wildfire risk mitigation in fire-prone areas

Author(s):  
Hugh Walpole ◽  
Sarah McCaffrey ◽  
Claire Rapp ◽  
Robyn Wilson
Fire ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
James R. Meldrum ◽  
Hannah Brenkert-Smith ◽  
Patricia Champ ◽  
Jamie Gomez ◽  
Lilia Falk ◽  
...  

Fire science emphasizes that mitigation actions on residential property, including structural hardening and maintaining defensible space, can reduce the risk of wildfire at a home. Accordingly, a rich body of social science literature investigates the determinants of wildfire risk mitigation behaviors of residents living in fire-prone areas. Here, we investigate relationships among wildfire hazards, residents’ risk perceptions, and conditions associated with mitigation actions using a combination of simulated wildfire conditions, household survey responses, and professionally assessed parcel characteristic data. We estimate a simultaneous model of these data that accounts for potential direct feedbacks between risk perceptions and parcel-level conditions. We also compare the use of self-reported versus assessed parcel-level data for estimating these relationships. Our analysis relies on paired survey and assessment data for approximately 2000 homes in western Colorado. Our simultaneous model demonstrates dual-directional interactions between risk perceptions and conditions associated with mitigation actions, with important implications for inference from simpler approaches. In addition to improving general understanding of decision-making about risk and natural hazards, our findings can support the effectiveness of publicly supported programs intended to encourage mitigation to reduce society’s overall wildfire risk.


2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 832 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia A. Champ ◽  
Geoffrey H. Donovan ◽  
Christopher M. Barth

The loss of homes to wildfires is an important issue in the USA and other countries. Yet many homeowners living in fire-prone areas do not undertake mitigating actions, such as clearing vegetation, to decrease the risk of losing their home. To better understand the complexity of wildfire risk-mitigation decisions and the role of perceived risk, we conducted a survey of homeowners in a fire-prone area of the front range of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. We examine the relationship between perceived wildfire risk ratings and risk-mitigating behaviours in two ways. First, we model wildfire risk-mitigation behaviours as a function of perceived risk. Then, we model wildfire risk-mitigation behaviours and perceived risk simultaneously. The results of the simultaneous model suggest that perceived risk and wildfire risk-mitigating behaviours are jointly determined. By correctly specifying the relationship between risk perceptions and mitigating behaviours, we are better able to understand the relationship between other factors, such as exposure to a wildfire-mitigation program and wildfire risk-mitigating behaviours. We also find that having a wood roof, as well as homeowner age, income and previous experience with living in a fire-prone area, are associated with wildfire risk-mitigating behaviours.


2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine S. Olsen ◽  
Jeffrey D. Kline ◽  
Alan A. Ager ◽  
Keith A. Olsen ◽  
Karen C. Short

Fire ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 41
Author(s):  
Catrin M. Edgeley ◽  
Jack T. Burnett

COVID-19 has complicated wildfire management and public safety for the 2020 fire season. It is unclear whether COVID-19 has impacted the ability of residents in the wildland–urban interface to prepare for and evacuate from wildfire, or the extent to which residents feel their household’s safety has been affected. Several areas with high wildfire risk are also experiencing record numbers of COVID-19 cases, including the state of Arizona in the southwestern United States. We conducted a mixed-mode survey of households in close proximity to two recent wildfires in rural Arizona to better understand whether residents living in the wildland–urban interface perceive COVID-19 as a factor in wildfire safety. Preliminary data suggest that the current challenges around collective action to address wildfire risk may be further exacerbated due to COVID-19, and that the current pandemic has potentially widened existing disparities in household capacity to conduct wildfire risk mitigation activities in the wildland–urban interface. Proactive planning for wildfire has also increased perceived ability to practice safe distancing from others during evacuation, highlighting the benefits that household planning for wildfire can have on other concurrent hazards. Parallels in both the wildfire and pandemic literature highlight vast opportunities for future research that can expand upon and advance our findings.


2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 921 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bonita L. McFarlane ◽  
Tara K. McGee ◽  
Hilary Faulkner

Each year wildfire affects communities in Canada, resulting in evacuations and, in some cases, loss of homes. Several Canadian wildfire management agencies have initiated mitigation programs aimed at reducing wildfire risk. Successful wildfire mitigation involves both community-level and homeowner action. This paper examines factors that influence wildfire mitigation by homeowners. We draw upon the general hazards and wildfire management literature to develop and test a theoretical model for homeowner wildfire mitigation that includes perceived risk, an evaluation of threat significance and the influence of perceived costs and benefits of mitigation. We used a mail survey to collect data from 1265 residents in six interface communities in the province of Alberta. Results showed a high level of completion for most mitigation activities. A structural equation model provided support for the hypothesis that the evaluation of threat involves weighing the negative effects of mitigation on homeowners’ feelings of connectedness to nature and the cost of mitigation with the positive influences of fear, a sense of responsibility and perceived effectiveness of mitigation. Considering the total effects, threat assessment had the greatest effect on mitigation by homeowners, followed by perceived effectiveness of mitigation in reducing damage and not having financial resources for mitigation.


2010 ◽  
Vol 40 (11) ◽  
pp. 2104-2114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Tutsch ◽  
Wolfgang Haider ◽  
Ben Beardmore ◽  
Kenneth Lertzman ◽  
Andrew B. Cooper ◽  
...  

Wildfire risk assessment research has made considerable progress towards estimating the probability of wildfires but comparatively little progress towards estimating the expected consequences of potential fires. One challenge with estimating wildfire consequences has been to identify a common metric that can be applied to consequences measured in different units. In this paper, we use the preferences of representatives of local fire management agencies as the common consequences metric and apply it to a case study in the southern Gulf Islands, British Columbia, Canada. The method uses an expert survey and a maximum-difference conjoint analysis to establish the relative importance of specific fire consequences. A fire with a major potential for loss of life was considered to be about three times worse than major damage to houses and 4.5 times worse than loss of a rare species. Risk ratings were very sensitive to changes in fire consequences ratings. As the complexity of values at risk and number of stakeholders increase, the most efficient allocation of wildfire prevention, protection, and suppression resources becomes increasingly challenging to determine. Thus, as the complexity of stakeholder representation and values at risk increases, we need to pay increasing attention to quantitative methods for measuring wildfire consequences.


Author(s):  
Robyn S. Wilson ◽  
Sarah M. McCaffrey ◽  
Eric Toman

Throughout the late 19th century and most of the 20th century, risks associated with wildfire were addressed by suppressing fires as quickly as possible. However, by the 1960s, it became clear that fire exclusion policies were having adverse effects on ecological health, as well as contributing to larger and more damaging wildfires over time. Although federal fire policy has changed to allow fire to be used as a management tool on the landscape, this change has been slow to take place, while the number of people living in high-risk wildland–urban interface communities continues to increase. Under a variety of climate scenarios, in particular for states in the western United States, it is expected that the frequency and severity of fires will continue to increase, posing even greater risks to local communities and regional economies.Resource managers and public safety officials are increasingly aware of the need for strategic communication to both encourage appropriate risk mitigation behavior at the household level, as well as build continued public support for the use of fire as a management tool aimed at reducing future wildfire risk. Household decision making encompasses both proactively engaging in risk mitigation activities on private property, as well as taking appropriate action during a wildfire event to protect personal safety. Very little research has directly explored the connection between climate-related beliefs, wildfire risk perception, and action; however, the limited existing research suggests that climate-related beliefs have little direct effect on wildfire-related action. Instead, action appears to depend on understanding the benefits of different mitigation actions and in engaging the public in interactive, participatory communication programs that build trust between the public and natural resource managers. A relatively new line of research focuses on resource managers as critical decision makers in the risk management process, pointing to the need to thoughtfully engage audiences other than the lay public to improve risk management.Ultimately, improving the decision making of both the public and managers charged with mitigating the risks associated with wildfire can be achieved by carefully addressing several common themes from the literature. These themes are to (1) promote increased efficacy through interactive learning, (2) build trust and capacity through social interaction, (3) account for behavioral constraints and barriers to action, and (4) facilitate thoughtful consideration of risk-benefit tradeoffs. Careful attention to these challenges will improve the likelihood of successfully managing the increasing risks that wildfire poses to the public and ecosystems alike in a changing climate.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document