Collaborative capacity, problem framing, and mutual trust in addressing the wildland fire social problem: An annotated reading list

Abstract

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...

The Role of Trust in Community Wildland Fire Protection Planning

“…There has been a recent proliferation of studies linking wildland fire planning and management to trust Brooks et al 2006;Cohn et al 2008;Jakes et al 2007;Liljeblad et al 2009;Paveglio et al 2009;Toman et al 2006;Vaske et al 2007). Several case studies have found trust to be a strong predictor of respondents' approval of government agencies to make proper decisions about the use of various treatments, such as prescribed burning and mechanical fuel reduction (Vogt et al 2005;Winter et al 2004).…”

“…If one government agency or special interest group dominates the framing of risk and the actions to reduce it, the public will likely be unwilling to trust the process or outcome. Whether the CWPPs allow for and encourage this broader framing of risk is of particular significance since it can lead to the likelihood for broad social and political acceptability of the plan (Brooks et al 2006). …”

Bark beetles, fuels, fires and implications for forest management in the Intermountain West

“…This presents unique challenges for land managers, particularly in light of competing social values, multiple stakeholder interests, and uncertain management outcomes Brooks et al, 2006;Snider et al, 2006). Additionally, differences in the physical environment, stand conditions, the amount and distribution of available fuels, and weather make 'one size fits all' management approaches ineffective .…”

“…This emphasis may soon encompass high-elevation subalpine forests as global climate change increases the potential for bark beetle outbreaks and intense wildfires, wildland/urban interfaces expand, and demands on important forest resources rise (Logan and Powell, 2001;Williams and Liebold, 2002;Carroll et al, 2003;Gan, 2003;Breshears et al, 2005;Brooks et al, 2006).…”

Issues and solutions for intensive plantation silviculture in a context of ecosystem management

“…1), we used an issueand-solution-based approach (Desmarais 2006, Comité scientifique sur les enjeux de biodiversité 2010, Grenon et al 2010, Roy et al 2010. With this problem-solving process (Brooks et al 2006, Dennison 2008, Wilshusen and Wallace 2009, the apparently contradictory aspects of the development of plantations within a context of ecosystem management were addressed through perceived issues. The approach served to define ecological issues based on gaps observed between natural and managed forests.…”