Wildfires, Communities, and Agencies: Stakeholders' Perceptions of Postfire Forest Restoration and Rehabilitation

After wildfire, land managers are often called on to undertake complex restoration activities while also managing relations with wildfire-devastated communities. This research investigates the community‐US Forest Service agency relations in the postwildfire period in three western US communities. In each community, we interviewed key informant representatives from government, business, environmental organizations, and recreation groups and conducted focus groups to gather input from residents located near burn areas. The goal was to understand how forest restoration and rehabilitation efforts and agency outreach were perceived by stakeholders who were recently affected by wildfire and how these perceptions were related to underlying community and fire conditions. Our findings suggest that four vectors interact to determine the level of expectations and need for agency‐community engagement in the postfire period: (1) the extent and characteristics of the fire; (2) community economic, recreational, and emotional connection to the forest; (3) the history of agency‐community relations; and (4) the level of volunteerism in the community. We provide a schematic of different types of collaboration relevant to the postfire period in which, generally, residents preferred action-oriented collaboration, while other agency personnel were more amenable to collaborative planning. On-theground volunteer restoration activities helped restore community spirit and improve agency‐community relations, and increased education and outreach were desirable. The model developed in this research argues for agency responses that consider both the social and the ecological communities when planning postfire restoration projects.

[1]  D. Roush Making collaboration work : lessons from innovation in natural resource management , 2002 .

[2]  Russell T. Graham,et al.  Hayman Fire Case Study , 2003 .

[3]  Stephen P. Borgatti,et al.  Enhanced ethnographic methods : audiovisual techniques, focused group interviews, and elicitation techniques , 1999 .

[4]  A. Strauss,et al.  The Discovery of Grounded Theory , 1967 .

[5]  Christine A. Vogt,et al.  Fuel Treatments at the Wildland-Urban Interface: Common Concerns in Diverse Regions , 2002, Journal of Forestry.

[6]  W. Mclaughlin,et al.  Forest Places of the Heart: Incorporating Special Spaces into Public Management , 1993, Journal of Forestry.

[7]  Daniel R. Williams,et al.  Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place , 1992 .

[8]  Terry C. Daniel,et al.  Prescribed Fire: Public Education and Perception , 1984 .

[9]  Sarah McCaffrey,et al.  Examining Social Trust in Fuels Management Strategies , 2004, Journal of Forestry.

[10]  Daniel R. Williams,et al.  An Event-Based Approach for Examining the Effects of Wildland Fire Decisions on Communities , 2006, Environmental management.

[11]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2010 .

[12]  J. Chambers,et al.  Use of native plants on federal lands: policy and practice. , 1998 .

[13]  Toddi A. Steelman,et al.  Federal and State Influence on Community Responses to Wildfire Threats: Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico , 2004 .

[14]  S. Mccool,et al.  How the public perceives the visual effects of timber harvesting: an evaluation of interest group preferences , 1986 .

[15]  R. Ribe Is Scenic Beauty a Proxy for Acceptable Management? , 2002 .

[16]  Lorie Higgins,et al.  Fire as a Galvanizing and Fragmenting Influence on Communities: The Case of the Rodeo–Chediski Fire , 2005 .

[17]  Steven E. Daniels,et al.  Evaluating the Application of Collaborative Learning to the Wenatchee Fire Recovery Planning Effort , 2001 .

[18]  R. Ryan Exploring the Effects of Environmental Experience on Attachment to Urban Natural Areas , 2005 .

[19]  Robert L. Ryan,et al.  Engaging communities in post-fire restoration: forest treatments and community-agency relations after the Cerro Grande fire , 2006 .

[20]  K. Widaman,et al.  The risk perceptions and policy response toward wildland fire hazards by urban home-owners , 1987 .

[21]  Steven E. Daniels,et al.  Smoke on the Hill: A Comparative Study of Wildfire and Two Communities , 2003 .

[22]  Elisabeth M. Hamin,et al.  Wildland-urban interface communities' response to post-fire salvage logging. , 2009 .

[23]  George H. Stankey,et al.  Social Acceptability of Forest Conditions and Management Practices: A Problem Analysis , 2002 .

[24]  Steven E. Daniels,et al.  Using Collaborative Learning in Fire Recovery Planning , 1996, Journal of Forestry.

[25]  Sarah McCaffrey,et al.  The public and wildland fire management: social science findings for managers , 2006 .

[26]  Pamela J. Jakes,et al.  Collaborative planning to reduce risk , 2008 .

[27]  Matthew S. Carroll,et al.  Wildland-urban interface resident's views on risk and attribution , 2008 .

[28]  D. Neary,et al.  Evaluating the Effectiveness Of Postfire Rehabilitation Treatments , 2000 .

[29]  S. Arnstein,et al.  Ladder of Citizen Participation , 2020 .

[30]  Robert L. Ryan,et al.  Predicting Volunteer Commitment in Environmental Stewardship Programmes , 2001 .

[31]  Bruce Shindler,et al.  Fuel Reduction Strategies in Forest Communities: A Longitudinal Analysis , 2003 .