Social perspectives on the use of reference conditions in restoration of fire‐adapted forest landscapes

Abstract

As approaches to ecological restoration become increasingly large scale and collaborative, there is a need to better understand social aspects of restoration and how they influence land management. In this article, we examine social perspectives that influence the determination of ecological reference conditions in restoration. Our analysis is based on in‐depth interviews with diverse stakeholders involved in collaborative restoration of fire‐adapted forest landscapes. We conducted interviews with 86 respondents from six forest collaboratives that are part of the U.S. Forest Service's Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. Collaboratives use a variety of approaches to develop reference conditions, including historic, contemporary, and future scenarios. Historical conditions prior to European settlement (nineteenth century or “pre‐settlement” conditions), or prior to more recent grazing, logging, and exclusion of fire, were the predominant type of reference used in all sites. Stakeholders described benefits and limitations of reference conditions. Primary benefits include (1) providing a science‐based framework for bringing stakeholders together around a common vision; (2) gaining social understanding and acceptance of the underlying need for restoration; and (3) serving to neutralize otherwise value‐laden discussions about multiple, sometimes competing, resource objectives. Limitations stem from (1) concerns over social conflict when reference conditions are perceived to contradict other stakeholder values and interests, (2) differing interpretations of reference condition science, (3) inappropriate application or over‐generalization of reference information, and (4) limited relevance of historical references for current and future conditions in some ecosystems. At the same time, collaboratives are adopting innovative strategies to address conceptual and methodological limitations of reference conditions.

Identifying reference communities in ecological restoration: the use of environmental conditions driving vegetation composition

“…Thus, we are convinced that our selected environmental factors are appropriate for the search of best matching reference sites. Such data collected in situ (contemporary data) may be complemented by historical data (wildfire records, land use changes) that may still affect plant species composition (Asbjornsen et al 2005; Urgenson et al 2018).…”

Establishing an Ecological Network to Enhance Forest Connectivity in South Korea’s Demilitarized Zone

“…The ecological connectivity-based management of border-area forest ecosystems is, thus, essential for conserving biodiversity in the Korean peninsula. Furthermore, considering regional characteristics with a high frequency of forest fires for military purposes, followed by the recovery of the forest landscape, the study area is anticipated to serve as a valuable reference model area for spatial planning, aiming to restore and manage forest landscapes in fire-prone regions in future [64]. Because the border area is still subject to military activity between South Korea and North Korea, the risk of remnants of war, such as landmines, limits the ability to thoroughly plan for managing forest ecosystems based on field surveys.…”

Social science to advance wildfire adaptation in the southwestern United States: a review and future research directions

“…CFLRP) consistently reveal the importance of building shared responsibility for ecosystem health as it relates to fire (Mottek Lucas et al 2017;Urgenson et al 2017;Davis et al 2022;Huber-Stearns et al 2022). Such efforts accelerated faster in the presence of broadly agreed upon interpretations of core concepts such as 'resilience,' 'forest restoration,' and 'best available science' (Colavito 2017;Urgenson et al 2018;Greiner et al 2020). However, discussions of where social resilience fits into fire adaptation efforts were scarce among managers tasked with the implementation of these programs (Greiner et al 2020).…”

“…as critical factors influencing the success of collaborative efforts(Urgenson et al 2017;Davis et al 2022;Huber-Stearns et al 2022). These conditions advanced social acceptance of management strategies among both the public and professionals, supported progressive identification of scientific needs, and allowed strategic prioritisation of treatments across landscapes among other benefits(Colavito 2017;Urgenson et al 2018;Davis et al 2022). Exploration of policy-driven initiatives for partnership, collaboration, or co-management was a common framing for Southwestern case studies; this included the Sitgreaves Community Wildfire Protection Plan(Fleeger 2008), the Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project(Miller et al 2017), the White Mountain Stewardship Project (Mottek Lucas et al 2017), Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) sites (Urgenson et al 2017, 2018; Bradshaw 2019), the Reserved Treat Rights Land Program(Russell et al 2021), and the Rio Grande Water Fund(Huber-Stearns et al 2022).…”