**2. Literature**

#### **2.1 Risk perceptions of wildfire**

Risk perceptions of wildfire have reflected the variability of findings found in the broader risk perception literature. Despite the importance of risk perceptions to wildfire mitigation actions [11–16], there is little consistency in the literature regarding the relationship between risk perceptions and mitigation behavior. For example, previous experience has been a factor in creating defensible space around homes; as well, it has been associated with apathy regarding the perceived likelihood of repeated wildfire events [17]. Similarly, proximity to wildfire has been shown to increase concern [18] or have little significance [19]. Inconsistencies suggest intervening social, economic, and ecological elements influence the ways homeowners view and address a wildfire hazard [20, 21]. As noted by several authors, risk perception is important to mitigation actions, but other factors within the biophysical, sociodemographic, and sociocultural contexts of wildfire may play equal or more important roles [22, 23].

#### **2.2 The biophysical context**

**Figure 1** depicts a matrix of biophysical, sociodemographic, and sociocultural contexts affecting landscape change and risk perceptions. The matrix reflects the idea of ecological roots, or the connection between ecological, social, economic,

**73**

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

and cultural resources [25]. Ecological roots encourage landscape recovery by find-

Biophysical factors include land use and cover, topography, climate, fuel load, fire regimes, wildlife, and numerous other ecological characteristics of the study site. An important consideration in the WUI is that wildfire risk can increase due to forest harvesting and fragmentation, inappropriate landscaping decisions, and flammable home building materials [26–29]. Landscape type, that is, shrub land versus pine forest or upland hardwood forests, also responds differently to fire susceptibility [30]. Emergency responders and natural resource managers are obligated to protect life and property even when low-density housing is difficult to defend from wildfire due to long emergency response times, lack of water sources,

Recent studies have found WUI residents were aware that the lack of fire led to unhealthy forest conditions [21, 32, 33]. As well, public education and outreach has had a positive influence on knowledge about fuel reduction treatment methods [34, 35]. Some studies have found respondents accepted the use of prescribed burning as an ecological practice on public land, although they preferred mechanical treatments when the forest is located close to a populated area [32, 36, 37]. Despite these findings, high knowledge levels have also been associated with decreased concerns [20, 38]. Ample evidence that the public recognizes the ecological role of fire suggests that additional factors intervene in attitudes toward fuel treatment methods, decisions to live in high-risk places, and other factors related to wildfire risk perceptions and

Transitional landscapes are defined not only by biological characteristics, but also by social changes, which should be considered in understanding risk perceptions and mitigation. For example, Moreira et al. [39] literature review noted socioeconomic drivers favoring land cover changes, which, in turn, contributed to increasing wildfire risk. Still, although some differences have been observed for race and gender, sociodemographic variables by themselves have rarely explained important differences in attitudes and behaviors toward wildfire [3, 7, 15, 17, 40, 41]. This includes urban or rural residency status, which has been linked to divergent views in

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

ing solutions linking these four elements.

*Biophysical, sociodemographic, and sociocultural contexts (modified from [24]).*

**Figure 1.**

and underdeveloped road systems [31].

mitigation activities.

**2.3 The sociodemographic context**

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

**Figure 1.** *Biophysical, sociodemographic, and sociocultural contexts (modified from [24]).*

and cultural resources [25]. Ecological roots encourage landscape recovery by finding solutions linking these four elements.

Biophysical factors include land use and cover, topography, climate, fuel load, fire regimes, wildlife, and numerous other ecological characteristics of the study site. An important consideration in the WUI is that wildfire risk can increase due to forest harvesting and fragmentation, inappropriate landscaping decisions, and flammable home building materials [26–29]. Landscape type, that is, shrub land versus pine forest or upland hardwood forests, also responds differently to fire susceptibility [30]. Emergency responders and natural resource managers are obligated to protect life and property even when low-density housing is difficult to defend from wildfire due to long emergency response times, lack of water sources, and underdeveloped road systems [31].

Recent studies have found WUI residents were aware that the lack of fire led to unhealthy forest conditions [21, 32, 33]. As well, public education and outreach has had a positive influence on knowledge about fuel reduction treatment methods [34, 35]. Some studies have found respondents accepted the use of prescribed burning as an ecological practice on public land, although they preferred mechanical treatments when the forest is located close to a populated area [32, 36, 37]. Despite these findings, high knowledge levels have also been associated with decreased concerns [20, 38]. Ample evidence that the public recognizes the ecological role of fire suggests that additional factors intervene in attitudes toward fuel treatment methods, decisions to live in high-risk places, and other factors related to wildfire risk perceptions and mitigation activities.

#### **2.3 The sociodemographic context**

Transitional landscapes are defined not only by biological characteristics, but also by social changes, which should be considered in understanding risk perceptions and mitigation. For example, Moreira et al. [39] literature review noted socioeconomic drivers favoring land cover changes, which, in turn, contributed to increasing wildfire risk. Still, although some differences have been observed for race and gender, sociodemographic variables by themselves have rarely explained important differences in attitudes and behaviors toward wildfire [3, 7, 15, 17, 40, 41]. This includes urban or rural residency status, which has been linked to divergent views in

*Landscape Reclamation - Rising From What's Left*

owners and the public place on forests [1–3].

protection.

**2. Literature**

messages and activities to them.

**2.1 Risk perceptions of wildfire**

equal or more important roles [22, 23].

**2.2 The biophysical context**

This is especially true of wildland-urban interface (WUI), a landscape of transition whereby increasing numbers of people and built structures invade wildlands. In the WUI of the United States, fire protection is directed not only at forests but also at homes and structures that are much more prevalent there. Resistance to recommended fuel treatments arises from two primary factors: (1) many of the prescribed fuel treatments do not reflect residents' understanding of forest management and (2) treatments are developed with little recognition of the multiple values

A limited number of studies have examined the relationship between wildfire mitigation activities and amenity values, recreation, or sense of place (e.g., [4–8]). More research is needed to consider the full set of multiple and competing values, particularly because wildland fire policy has evolved from agency-focused risk mitigation to empowerment and action at the household and community levels [9, 10]. Risk managers must acknowledge that successful implementation of risk reduction strategies necessitates resident participation which, in turn, demands an understanding of values associated with wildfire

This chapter synthesizes findings from research exploring wildfire risk perceptions as they reflect variation in social values of the forest surrounding the study communities. To do this, we present findings from key informant interviews, which comprised the first phase of a multi-phase, mixed methods project that also included facilitated community discussions and a national mail survey. Findings will help fire managers, community leaders, and other end-users better understand public perceptions of issues surrounding the full range of values associated with rural-urban transition zones. The definition of "public" is as dynamic as the forest, and it is land managers' responsibility to recognize public concerns and tailor their

Risk perceptions of wildfire have reflected the variability of findings found in the broader risk perception literature. Despite the importance of risk perceptions to wildfire mitigation actions [11–16], there is little consistency in the literature regarding the relationship between risk perceptions and mitigation behavior. For example, previous experience has been a factor in creating defensible space around homes; as well, it has been associated with apathy regarding the perceived likelihood of repeated wildfire events [17]. Similarly, proximity to wildfire has been shown to increase concern [18] or have little significance [19]. Inconsistencies suggest intervening social, economic, and ecological elements influence the ways homeowners view and address a wildfire hazard [20, 21]. As noted by several authors, risk perception is important to mitigation actions, but other factors within the biophysical, sociodemographic, and sociocultural contexts of wildfire may play

**Figure 1** depicts a matrix of biophysical, sociodemographic, and sociocultural contexts affecting landscape change and risk perceptions. The matrix reflects the idea of ecological roots, or the connection between ecological, social, economic,

**72**

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 patterns and intensity [39].

#### **2.4 The sociocultural context**

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 memberships [22, 47, 48].

Social institutions (i.e., insurance, government, and corporations) are a critical 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 [16, 27, 34].

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 are appropriate.

**75**

**Table 1.**

*Key informant types (n = 148).*

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

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 dynam-

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

Key informant interviews were conducted in each of these four states during 2012 (**Table 1**). Interviews were administered to individuals knowledgeable about WUI issues and local affairs; moreover, these people were broadly representative of private forest landowners (PFLs), forest industry, government, local political and social factions, and social status [51]. We conducted 33 interviews in Georgia, 35 in New Mexico, 35 in Minnesota, and 45 in Oregon for a total of 148. Initial key informants were identified using local directories and Internet sources. To ensure

**Number of key informants**

**Type New Mexico Georgia Minnesota Oregon** Government (federal, state, local) 13 23 16 28 Business 5 4 6 4 Minority group 2 2 3 Environmentalist 4 3 4 Media 2 2 3 2

Forest industry 1 3 3 2

Religious leaders 2 1 1 2 Total 35 33 35 45

Citizen activists 2 1

Rio Arriba County lost the most rural population (−2% to 40,246).

Landowners 4

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

ics, including landscape diversity [50].

**3. Study area**

**4. Methods**

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