Social Amplification of Wildfire Risk: The Role of Social Interactions and Information Sources

Abstract

Wildfire is a persistent and growing threat across much of the western United States. Understanding how people living in fire-prone areas perceive this threat is essential to the design of effective risk management policies. Drawing on the social amplification of risk framework, we develop a conceptual model of wildfire risk perceptions that incorporates the social processes that likely shape how individuals in fire-prone areas come to understand this risk, highlighting the role of information sources and social interactions. We classify information sources as expert or nonexpert, and group social interactions according to two dimensions: formal versus informal, and generic versus fire-specific. Using survey data from two Colorado counties, we empirically examine how information sources and social interactions relate to the perceived probability and perceived consequences of a wildfire. Our results suggest that social amplification processes play a role in shaping how individuals in this area perceive wildfire risk. A key finding is that both "vertical" (i.e., expert information sources and formal social interactions) and "horizontal" (i.e., nonexpert information and informal interactions) interactions are associated with perceived risk of experiencing a wildfire. We also find evidence of perceived "risk interdependency"--that is, homeowners' perceptions of risk are higher when vegetation on neighboring properties is perceived to be dense. Incorporating social amplification processes into community-based wildfire education programs and evaluating these programs' effectiveness constitutes an area for future inquiry.

Public information seeking, place-based risk messaging and wildfire preparedness in southern California

“…Although many social science studies of fire management understanding, preparedness actions and attitudes to fuel treatments have found little geographic variation (McCaffrey and Olsen 2012), previous studies on wildland fire risk perception and information seeking indicate that there will likely be differences in information use based on several factors. Brenkert-Smith et al (2013) found that geographic location was one factor shown to increase risk perception, and risk perception ties to information seeking. According to Lachlan et al (2008), those in urban areas tend to find out about disaster incidents from other people, either faceto-face or by mobile phones or landline calls, whereas personal contacts at agencies and radio stations tend to be preferred as an information source for those in more rural areas (Cohen et al 2007).…”

“…As evacuees seek information more actively than those who are not directly affected by wildfires, those who have prepared to evacuate will seek information more actively as well. Brenkert-Smith et al (2013) find a connection between risk and information source in Colorado residents in areas at high WUI risk, and Heath et al (2011) find that preparedness actions in Western Australia are largely tied to information from fire authority pamphlets. Therefore, we expect:…”

“…For instance, local information seeking and public information dissemination influence both locally specific risk perception (Brenkert-Smith et al 2013) and wildfire preparedness actions (McCaffrey 2004). Recent social science literature related to wildfire demonstrates a clear relationship between risk perception, public communication, information seeking and preparedness actions, but less knowledge exists on the effects of prefire interaction and incident communication with local residents (McCaffrey et al 2013a).…”

Drivers of risk perceptions about the invasive non-native plant Japanese knotweed in domestic gardens

“…Several studies have found a limited ability of the mass media to influence perception of other risks (Freudenburg et al 1996;Wåhlberg and Sjöberg 2000;Brenkert-Smith et al 2013), as well as support for management options of invasive species (Sharp et al 2011). Despite sensationalist headlines, pictures and loaded language, factual information is contained within some articles (Freudenburg et al 1996), which may help objectively to assess the risk.…”

Agent-based computational modelling of social risk responses

“…It has been used in a wide variety of contexts, including wildfire risk (Brenkert-Smith et al, 2013), the siting of potentially hazardous installations (Binder et al, 2011), environmental risk from tunneling (Chung, 2011), disease outbreaks (Lewis and Tyshenko, 2009, Raude et al, 2004, Busby and Duckett, 2012, genetically modified foods (Frewer et al, 2002), the dismantling of hazardous installations (Bakir, 2005), chemical accidents (Porto and de Freitas, 1996), climate change (Renn, 2011), nuclear weapons facility accidents (Metz, 1996), inoculation risks (Petts and Niemeyer, 2004) and general levels of violence in society (Hill, 2001). In such situations, the framework has provided a way of describing how discrepancies between the risk beliefs of different groups, and between experts and lay communities especially, can arise.…”