**3. Study area**

*Landscape Reclamation - Rising From What's Left*

patterns and intensity [39].

memberships [22, 47, 48].

**2.4 The sociocultural context**

resource management (i.e., prescribed fire, thinning, grazing), but not significant differences in wildfire risk perceptions per se [41]. Still, sociodemographics are important in the WUI where social and landscape change can lead to conflict in the sociocultural context of wildfire [42]. Surveys used to quantify perceptions of wildfire risk often have a limited ability to draw connections between sociodemographic variables and more difficult to measure sociocultural variables, including social conflict and collective agency [43]. Improving social assessment related to land use change is critical given that land use policies and land cover management affect fire

Traditions, attitudes, beliefs, and value systems of WUI populations are part of the sociocultural context of wildfire. As Beck [44] noted, risk is intertwined with society's economic and political structures, and the complexity of modern risk means no one fully understands the dangers they face. Wildfire risk is a fusion of ecological and technological drivers complicated further by enormous budgets, political lobbying, and media amplification. Nevertheless, risks are bound up in instrumental rational control—through decisions people make about their lives and future courses of action [44]. The sociocultural context of risk underscores both agency and the social construction of wildfire and preparedness (also [45]). Within the sociocultural context, in-migration is an important characteristic

of many interface zones even though the WUI is not defined by population change. In such cases, residents often have to renegotiate local identity and symbols of collective life as the penetration of new and different value systems and threats to traditional norms and membership groups occurs with the emergence of heterogeneity [42, 46]. These differences can manifest in competing notions about esthetics, land use and community growth, natural resources management, and strategies for addressing wildfire risk. Additional community processes (e.g., race and class conflict, environmental concerns, historical grudges, social movements, cultural celebrations) emerge from change. Sharing direct and indirect wildfire experiences and local landscape knowledge can become increasingly challenging as a result of conflicting worldviews and competing group

Social institutions (i.e., insurance, government, and corporations) are a critical

To examine values associated with wildfire perceptions and risk management,

we consider the three dimensions of wildfire risk outlined above: biophysical, sociodemographic, and sociocultural. We then describe how community mitigation actions materialized from the contexts and merged into effective risk reduction strategies. Findings can serve as a springboard for wildfire and fuel treatment message development and contribute to evaluation processes capable of use in areas where public education campaigns are ongoing, are required, or

aspect of the sociocultural context because they are key players in the management of risk [44]. To maintain this role, effective messaging must be continuously reevaluated because trust is dynamic and highly dependent on the relationship between the institution and the public. Residents who have less confidence in an institution's ability to fulfill its role have demonstrated increased levels of concern about wildfire and are less likely than others to accept initiatives designed to address it [21, 29]. Risk communication through direct contact, citizen involvement in decision-making, and an understanding of local context has been most effective in sustained wildfire mitigation at the individual and community levels

**74**

[16, 27, 34].

are appropriate.

Research sites for this study were selected based on their classification in the WUI [31] and whether or not they had a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP; http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/success/index.cfm). Sites varied by sociodemographic indicators (e.g., in-migration and seasonal housing) and biophysical factors (e.g., forest type) and corresponded to US Forest Service Regions (Eastern, Pacific Northwest, Southern; [49]). For comparison, a metropolitan county was selected with an adjacent nonmetropolitan county in each region. All sites had been designated as wildfire-prone and wildland fire issues were prominent [9]. Human-driven changes have had an important influence on land cover dynamics, including landscape diversity [50].

Study counties included Clinch (nonmetropolitan) and Lowndes Counties (metropolitan) in Georgia; Carlton (nonmetropolitan) and St. Louis (metropolitan) Counties in Minnesota; Rio Arriba (nonmetropolitan) and Santa Fe (metropolitan) Counties in New Mexico; and Jefferson (nonmetropolitan) and Deschutes (metropolitan) Counties in Oregon. In 2010, populations ranged from under 6798 in Clinch County to over 200,000 in St. Louis County. All counties except Clinch, St. Louis, and Rio Arriba experienced an increase in population between decennial censuses. Deschutes County experienced the greatest population increase (37% to 157,733); Clinch County the greatest decline (−1% to 6798). Jefferson County experienced the largest amount of in-migration to rural areas (17% to 13,710), while Rio Arriba County lost the most rural population (−2% to 40,246).
