The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) encourages communities to develop community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs) to reduce their wildland fire risk and promote healthier forested ecosystems. Communities who have developed CWPPs have done so using many different processes, resulting in plans with varied form and content. We analysed data from 13 case-study communities to illustrate how the characteristics of HFRA have encouraged communities to develop CWPPs that reflect their local social and ecological contexts. A framework for analysing policy implementation suggests that some elements of HFRA could have made CWPP development and implementation problematic, but these potential shortcomings in the statute have provided communities the freedom to develop CWPPs that are relevant to their conditions and allowed for the development of capacities that communities are using to move forward in several areas.
We reviewed, annotated, and organized recent social science research and developed a framework for addressing the wildland fire social problem. We annotated articles related to three topic areas or factors, which are critical for understanding collective action, particularly in the wildland-urban interface. These factors are collaborative capacity, problem framing, and mutual trust. The integration of these is a prerequisite of collective action to develop Community Wildfire Protection Plans, reduce vegetative fuels, enhance public safety and preparedness, and/or create defensible space. Collective action requires partnerships, common goals, and a common language. Understanding the inter-relationships between the factors that enable collective action is important to collaborative partnerships, forest managers, and social science researchers as they work together to address the wildland fire social problem. Cover art designed by Pam Froemke.You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your mailing information in label form through one of the following media. Please specify the publication title and series number. Publishing ServicesTelephone (970) Executive SummaryThis report is an annotated literature review of recently published social science articles and papers. We annotated research that examined collaborative capacity, problem framing, and mutual trust. We suggest that an integration of these factors is prerequisite to collective management of today's wildland fire social problem.Understanding the relationships and interactions between these factors is important to collaborative partnerships, on-the-ground forest managers and practitioners working in the wildland-urban interface, and social science researchers who are planning new research projects to better understand the wildland fire social problem.From an organizational perspective, collaborative capacity means having a clear vision and strategy to enable collective thinking, adaptive planning, and implementation beyond money, personnel, skills, and equipmentalthough these are important aspects of overall capacity to collaborate. A collaborative entity or partnership, with self-organization, established relationships, an attitude of confidence, and a coherent frame of reference may have the capacity to act in ways to improve problem situations.Problem framing involves the different ways that stakeholders see or define, the problem-public understandings plural. Forest ecologists studying the wildland-urban interface would most likely frame the problem differently than residents. Likewise, this report provides a social science/human dimensions frame of reference. Given the many ways to define and approach this dynamic problem, we do not put forth a succinct definition of the wildland fire social problem in the report.Mutual trust includes positive public relations and respect for different frames of reference. Mutual trust develops through inclusive, interactive communication and co-learning processes, not top-down, one-way pers...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.