**6. Discussion**

This chapter presented a synthesis of key informant findings from four states regarding public perceptions of values associated with wildfire protection. Findings provide a foundation for future research and application by placing public wildfire risk perceptions into the biophysical, sociodemographic, and sociocultural contexts of communities, which frame the full range of values, attitudes, and behaviors associated with wildfire and forests (**Figure 2**). The model is fluid, with each dimension influencing and influenced by the other dimensions. Findings underscore the need to better measure and understand how sociocultural factors are associated with wildfire response.

Most key informants described fairly low community level concerns about wildfire despite their counties being recognized as high risk and having Community Wildfire Protection Plans in place [9]. Deschutes County was an exception, with community-wide risk mitigation actions reflecting relatively high levels of concern. Interviews from the two Western states illustrated residents' understanding of additional risks associated with fuel regimes. In some cases, informants were concerned about increased potential for wildfire as a result of tree mortality caused by the mountain pine beetle*.* In other cases, wildfire was linked to drought, which, in turn, was linked to climate change. Key informants noted population pressures can increase this web of concerns in the American West. These findings underscore the public's capacity for perceiving associations between environmental vulnerabilities; however, social and cultural dimensions of the community may cloud interpretations, and residents may have difficulty articulating such relationships.

Related to the sociodemographic dimension, risk perceptions, concerns, and behaviors varied across geographic areas in relation to biophysical characteristics of the landscape and cultural values of the population. This finding contrasts with previous research failing to demonstrate sociodemographic differences, including urban or rural residency [3, 17, 55]. Our study found increased concerns in the West compared to the two other study areas primarily due to the regions' recent history of catastrophic wildfires and drought conditions. As well, prescribed burning was generally accepted, but perspectives varied regionally as to whether it mimicked natural processes or was a component of "unnatural forests." In addition, findings generally supported previous research demonstrating public understanding of

**81**

difference in mitigating wildfire risk [60].

*Public Perceptions of Values Associated with Wildfire Protection at the Wildland-Urban…*

urban residents, were typically less concerned than their counterparts.

scapes, along with ecological restoration and environmental activities.

As well, our findings underscore the importance of local social and political institutions as key players in leading risk management [44]. Of our eight county sites, Santa Fe and Deschutes Counties demonstrated the strongest actions to reduce wildfire hazard. These actions were driven by robust collaboration between public and private groups (also [59]). Organizations, such as the NGO in Deschutes County, were important for transcending sociocultural divisions within communities and initiating dialog about the threat of wildfire to *all* residents. Although New Mexico exhibited mitigation activities, key informants acknowledged the activities excluded specific segments of the population; therefore, the actions were impeded at the community level.

Several implications emerge from this discussion. Because residents cope with a range of risks and hazards in their daily lives, many of which emerge from the changing social and biophysical landscape of the WUI, risk managers and community leaders should acknowledge competing risks when developing wildfire mitigation programs and messages. Risk managers have long understood that individuals have a finite capacity to effectively address many risks they face, and wildfire may take a backseat to other more salient concerns. This study suggests one way of initially identifying and characterizing competing risks and concerns is to employ the framework used here for understanding sustainable risk reduction (**Figure 2**). With residents' direct input, this approach can help promote dialog, understanding, and prioritization of community level concerns. As evidenced by Deschutes County leadership, resident contribution to the classification of risks is critical to the success of a comprehensive framework.

In addition, findings from this study suggest the potential for increasing awareness about wildfire and reducing risk by incorporating intersecting concerns from the biophysical context and acknowledging geographic differences [7]. For example, because water concerns and mountain pine beetle were salient and linked to wildfire, such hazards could be used as a vehicle to develop messaging that specifically addresses wildfire mitigation activities at the individual and community levels. For many places in the arid West, fuel reduction within the immediate goal of water quantity (and watershed management) may be valued more than fuel reduction for its own sake. Similarly, programs in Georgia might focus more on the local health effects of smoke produced by wildfires; forest management activities such as prescribed fire have the potential to reduce airborne contaminants. One goal of this communication would be to allay the remnants of the total suppression message. Because residents are familiar with smoke, but not familiar with wildfire per se, communication strategies addressing smoke may have the desired impact. This implication may have ancillary effects on the scale of fuel reduction since all prescriptions must be implemented on a larger scale than currently performed in order to have any real

wildfire in forest ecosystems (e.g., [33, 45, 56–58]). However, rural residents, who informants described as having more knowledge of biophysical processes than

This study acknowledges that differences in wildfire perceptions are entwined in society's sociocultural structures, which evolve along with the changing ecology of transitional landscapes. As McCaffrey and Olsen [43] noted, sociocultural factors are "the more complex, often identity-based, and harder-to-measure factors … [that] appear more likely to explain variation in how individuals respond to fire management issues." Key informant interviews demonstrated that growing communities have substantial challenges related to the social milieu, which influenced collective perceptions and the ways communities could address wildfire [22, 42, 47, 48]. The importance of sociocultural factors suggests a considerable need for work that improves the ability to identify and describe how the sociocultural context fits into risk perceptions and mitigation, key components of managing transitional land-

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82171*

**Figure 2.** *Framework for understanding sustainable risk reduction.*

#### *Public Perceptions of Values Associated with Wildfire Protection at the Wildland-Urban… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82171*

wildfire in forest ecosystems (e.g., [33, 45, 56–58]). However, rural residents, who informants described as having more knowledge of biophysical processes than urban residents, were typically less concerned than their counterparts.

This study acknowledges that differences in wildfire perceptions are entwined in society's sociocultural structures, which evolve along with the changing ecology of transitional landscapes. As McCaffrey and Olsen [43] noted, sociocultural factors are "the more complex, often identity-based, and harder-to-measure factors … [that] appear more likely to explain variation in how individuals respond to fire management issues." Key informant interviews demonstrated that growing communities have substantial challenges related to the social milieu, which influenced collective perceptions and the ways communities could address wildfire [22, 42, 47, 48]. The importance of sociocultural factors suggests a considerable need for work that improves the ability to identify and describe how the sociocultural context fits into risk perceptions and mitigation, key components of managing transitional landscapes, along with ecological restoration and environmental activities.

As well, our findings underscore the importance of local social and political institutions as key players in leading risk management [44]. Of our eight county sites, Santa Fe and Deschutes Counties demonstrated the strongest actions to reduce wildfire hazard. These actions were driven by robust collaboration between public and private groups (also [59]). Organizations, such as the NGO in Deschutes County, were important for transcending sociocultural divisions within communities and initiating dialog about the threat of wildfire to *all* residents. Although New Mexico exhibited mitigation activities, key informants acknowledged the activities excluded specific segments of the population; therefore, the actions were impeded at the community level.

Several implications emerge from this discussion. Because residents cope with a range of risks and hazards in their daily lives, many of which emerge from the changing social and biophysical landscape of the WUI, risk managers and community leaders should acknowledge competing risks when developing wildfire mitigation programs and messages. Risk managers have long understood that individuals have a finite capacity to effectively address many risks they face, and wildfire may take a backseat to other more salient concerns. This study suggests one way of initially identifying and characterizing competing risks and concerns is to employ the framework used here for understanding sustainable risk reduction (**Figure 2**). With residents' direct input, this approach can help promote dialog, understanding, and prioritization of community level concerns. As evidenced by Deschutes County leadership, resident contribution to the classification of risks is critical to the success of a comprehensive framework.

In addition, findings from this study suggest the potential for increasing awareness about wildfire and reducing risk by incorporating intersecting concerns from the biophysical context and acknowledging geographic differences [7]. For example, because water concerns and mountain pine beetle were salient and linked to wildfire, such hazards could be used as a vehicle to develop messaging that specifically addresses wildfire mitigation activities at the individual and community levels. For many places in the arid West, fuel reduction within the immediate goal of water quantity (and watershed management) may be valued more than fuel reduction for its own sake.

Similarly, programs in Georgia might focus more on the local health effects of smoke produced by wildfires; forest management activities such as prescribed fire have the potential to reduce airborne contaminants. One goal of this communication would be to allay the remnants of the total suppression message. Because residents are familiar with smoke, but not familiar with wildfire per se, communication strategies addressing smoke may have the desired impact. This implication may have ancillary effects on the scale of fuel reduction since all prescriptions must be implemented on a larger scale than currently performed in order to have any real difference in mitigating wildfire risk [60].

*Landscape Reclamation - Rising From What's Left*

This chapter presented a synthesis of key informant findings from four states regarding public perceptions of values associated with wildfire protection. Findings provide a foundation for future research and application by placing public wildfire risk perceptions into the biophysical, sociodemographic, and sociocultural contexts of communities, which frame the full range of values, attitudes, and behaviors associated with wildfire and forests (**Figure 2**). The model is fluid, with each dimension influencing and influenced by the other dimensions. Findings underscore the need to better measure and understand how sociocultural factors are associated with wildfire response. Most key informants described fairly low community level concerns about wildfire despite their counties being recognized as high risk and having Community Wildfire Protection Plans in place [9]. Deschutes County was an exception, with community-wide risk mitigation actions reflecting relatively high levels of concern. Interviews from the two Western states illustrated residents' understanding of additional risks associated with fuel regimes. In some cases, informants were concerned about increased potential for wildfire as a result of tree mortality caused by the mountain pine beetle*.* In other cases, wildfire was linked to drought, which, in turn, was linked to climate change. Key informants noted population pressures can increase this web of concerns in the American West. These findings underscore the public's capacity for perceiving associations between environmental vulnerabilities; however, social and cultural dimensions of the community may cloud interpreta-

tions, and residents may have difficulty articulating such relationships.

Related to the sociodemographic dimension, risk perceptions, concerns, and behaviors varied across geographic areas in relation to biophysical characteristics of the landscape and cultural values of the population. This finding contrasts with previous research failing to demonstrate sociodemographic differences, including urban or rural residency [3, 17, 55]. Our study found increased concerns in the West compared to the two other study areas primarily due to the regions' recent history of catastrophic wildfires and drought conditions. As well, prescribed burning was generally accepted, but perspectives varied regionally as to whether it mimicked natural processes or was a component of "unnatural forests." In addition, findings generally supported previous research demonstrating public understanding of

**6. Discussion**

**80**

**Figure 2.**

*Framework for understanding sustainable risk reduction.*

Finally, strong leadership can drive the process of characterizing community members' diverse values and concerns. Ideally, leadership in wildfire risk mitigation would originate from a community organization with no political affiliation. It is critical that, as one Oregonian put it, the program grow "in an organic way" and be part of the broader community development process [38, 61]. Although leadership has been a factor in the human dimensions of wildfire literature [7, 41, 62, 63], further research is needed to characterize the qualities and processes (e.g., dispute resolution, social learning, and collaborative planning, which require an understanding of the ecological and social dynamics of the locality) of leadership emerging in success stories [43, 59, 64, 65].
