Collective action for managing wildfire risk across boundaries in forest and range landscapes: lessons from case studies in the western United States
Heidi R. Huber-Stearns A B * , Emily Jane Davis C , Antony S. Cheng D and Alison Deak A E
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for Resilient Organizations, Communities, and Environment, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA.
B School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
C Forestry and Natural Resources Extension and Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.
D Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship and Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
E University of California Cooperative Extension, Mariposa, CA, USA.
* Correspondence to: hhuber@uoregon.edu
International Journal of Wildland Fire 31(10) 936-948 https://doi.org/10.1071/WF21168
Submitted: 20 November 2021 Accepted: 16 August 2022 Published: 13 September 2022
© 2022 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of IAWF.
Abstract
Managing wildfire risk across boundaries and scales is critical in fire-prone landscapes around the world, as a variety of actors undertake mitigation and response activities according to jurisdictional, conceptual and administrative boundaries, based on available human, organisational, technical and financial resources. There is a need to catalyse coordination more effectively to collectively manage wildfire risk. We interviewed 102 people across five large landscape case studies in the western United States to categorise how people and organisations were deployed in range and forestlands to collectively address wildfire risk. Across all cases, actors spanned boundaries to perform functions including: (1) convening meetings and agreements; (2) implementing projects; (3) community outreach; (4) funding support; (5) project planning; (6) scientific expertise. These functions fostered conducive boundary settings, concepts and objects to communicate and work across boundaries, navigating challenges to implementing work on the ground. This work highlights context-specific ways to advance cross-boundary wildfire risk reduction efforts and uses a boundary spanning lens to illustrate how collective action in wildfire management evolves in different settings. This research highlights prescribed fire as a gateway for future collective action on wildfire risk, including managing naturally ignited wildfires for resource benefits and improving coordination during wildfire suppression efforts.
Keywords: Boundary spanning, coalitions, collective action, cross-boundary risk reduction, prescribed fire, Wildfire management, Wildfire risk reduction.
References
Abrams J (2019) The emergence of network governance in US National Forest Administration: Causal factors and propositions for future research. Forest Policy and Economics 106, 101977| The emergence of network governance in US National Forest Administration: Causal factors and propositions for future research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Abrams JB, Knapp M, Paveglio TB, Ellison A, Moseley C, Nielsen-Pincus M, Carroll MS (2015) Re-envisioning community-wildfire relations in the US West as adaptive governance. Ecology and Society 20, 34
| Re-envisioning community-wildfire relations in the US West as adaptive governance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bodin Ö, Nohrstedt D (2016) Formation and performance of collaborative disaster management networks: Evidence from a Swedish wildfire response. Global Environmental Change 41, 183–194.
| Formation and performance of collaborative disaster management networks: Evidence from a Swedish wildfire response.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Caggiano M (2019) Collaboratively engaging stakeholders to develop potential operational delineations. CFRI-1908. Colorado Forest Restoration institute, Colorado State University. Available at https://cfri.colostate.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2019/08/PODs-Collaborative-Engagement-Final-Report.pdf
Canadas MJ, Novais A, Marques M (2016) Wildfires, forest management and landowners’ collective action: A comparative approach at the local level. Land Use Policy 56, 179–188.
| Wildfires, forest management and landowners’ collective action: A comparative approach at the local level.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Carreiras M, Ferreira AJD, Valente S, Fleskens L, Gonzales-Pelayo Ó, Rubio JL, Stoof CR, Coelho COA, Ferreira CSS, Ritsema CJ (2014) Comparative analysis of policies to deal with wildfire risk. Land Degradation & Development 25, 92–103.
| Comparative analysis of policies to deal with wildfire risk.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Charnley S, Kelly EC, Fischer AP (2020) Fostering collective action to reduce wildfire risk across property boundaries in the American West. Environmental Research Letters 15, 025007
| Fostering collective action to reduce wildfire risk across property boundaries in the American West.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cheng AS, Dale L (2020) Achieving adaptive governance of forest wildfire risk using competitive grants: Insights from the Colorado Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant program. Review of Policy Research 37, 657–686.
| Achieving adaptive governance of forest wildfire risk using competitive grants: Insights from the Colorado Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant program.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cheng AS, Aplet GH, Waltz AEM (2019) A new era for collaborative forest management. In ‘A New Era for Collaborative Forest Management: Policy and Practice Insights from the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program’, 1st edn. (Eds WH Butler, CA Schultz) (Routledge: London)
| Crossref |
Colavito MM, Trainor SF, Kettle NP, York A (2019) Making the transition from science delivery to knowledge coproduction in boundary spanning: A case study of the Alaska Fire Science Consortium. Weather, Climate, and Society 11, 917–934.
| Making the transition from science delivery to knowledge coproduction in boundary spanning: A case study of the Alaska Fire Science Consortium.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cowan E (2022) Forest Service project planning to implementation. Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition Guidebook. June, 2022. Available at https://www.ruralvoicescoalition.org/s/Planning-to-Implementation_FINAL_LR.pdf
Cyphers LA, Schultz CA (2019) Policy design to support cross-boundary land management: The example of the Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership. Land Use Policy 80, 362–369.
| Policy design to support cross-boundary land management: The example of the Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Davis EJ (2019) Boots on the ground, boots around the table: Managing rangeland fire risk in Oregon and Idaho. Co-managing wildfire risk fact sheet 1. Northwest Fire Science Consortium. Available at https://www.nwfirescience.org/sites/default/files/publications/FactSheet1_RangelandFire_Final.pdf
Davis EJ, Huber-Stearns H, Cheng AS, Jacobson M (2021) Transcending parallel play: Boundary spanning for collective action in wildfire management. Fire 4, 41
| Transcending parallel play: Boundary spanning for collective action in wildfire management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Davis EJ, Huber-Stearns H, Caggiano M, McAvoy D, Cheng AS, Deak A, Evans A (2022) Managed wildfire: a strategy facilitated by civil society partnerships and interagency cooperation. Society & Natural Resources 35, 914–932.
| Managed wildfire: a strategy facilitated by civil society partnerships and interagency cooperation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dunn CJ, Calkin DE, Thompson MP (2017) Towards enhanced risk management: Planning, decision making and monitoring of US wildfire response. International Journal of Wildland Fire 26, 551–556.
| Towards enhanced risk management: Planning, decision making and monitoring of US wildfire response.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dunn CJ, O’Connor CD, Abrams J, Thompson MP, Calkin DE, Johnston JD, Stratton R, Gilbertson-Day J (2020) Wildfire risk science facilitates adaptation of fire-prone social-ecological systems to the new fire reality. Environmental Research Letters 15, 025001
| Wildfire risk science facilitates adaptation of fire-prone social-ecological systems to the new fire reality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fischer AP, Charnley S (2012) Risk and cooperation: Managing hazardous fuel in mixed ownership landscapes. Environmental Management 49, 1192–1207.
| Risk and cooperation: Managing hazardous fuel in mixed ownership landscapes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Goldstein BE, Butler WH (2010) The US Fire Learning Network: Providing a narrative framework for restoring ecosystems, professions, and institutions. Society & Natural Resources 23, 935–951.
| The US Fire Learning Network: Providing a narrative framework for restoring ecosystems, professions, and institutions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Greiner SM, Schultz CA, Kooistra C (2020) Pre-season fire management planning: The use of Potential Operational Delineations to prepare for wildland fire events. International Journal of Wildland Fire 30, 170–178.
| Pre-season fire management planning: The use of Potential Operational Delineations to prepare for wildland fire events.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hiers JK, O’Brien JJ, Varner JM, Butler BW, Dickinson M, Furman J, Gallagher M, Godwin D, Goodrick SL, Hood SM, Hudak A, Kobziar LN, Linn R, Loudermilk EL, McCaffrey S, Robertson K, Rowell EM, Skowronski N, Watts AC, Yedinak KM (2020) Prescribed fire science: The case for a refined research agenda. Fire Ecology 16, 11
| Prescribed fire science: The case for a refined research agenda.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Huber-Stearns HR, Davis EJ, Evans Z, Caggiano M (2019a) Letting nature do the work: Managing wildfires for resource objectives in New Mexico. Co-managing wildfire risk fact sheet 2. Northwest Fire Science Consortium. Available at https://www.nwfirescience.org/sites/default/files/publications/FactSheet2_NewMexico_FINAL.pdf
Huber-Stearns HR, Schultz C, Cheng AS (2019b) A multiple streams analysis of institutional innovation in forest watershed governance. Review of Policy Research 36, 781–804.
| A multiple streams analysis of institutional innovation in forest watershed governance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Huber-Stearns HR, Santo AR, Schultz CA, McCaffrey SM (2021) Network governance in the use of prescribed fire: Roles for bridging organizations and other actors in the western United States. Regional Environmental Change 21, 118
| Network governance in the use of prescribed fire: Roles for bridging organizations and other actors in the western United States.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Huxham C, Vangen S (2005) ‘Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage.’ (Routledge: Abingdon, UK)
Jacobson M, Smith H, Huber-Stearns HR, Davis EJ, Cheng AS, Deak A (2021) Comparing social constructions of wildfire risk across media, government, and participatory discourse in a Colorado fireshed. Journal of Risk Research 25, 697–714.
| Comparing social constructions of wildfire risk across media, government, and participatory discourse in a Colorado fireshed.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kooistra C, Schultz C, Abrams J, Huber-Stearns H (2022) Institutionalizing the United States Forest Service’s shared stewardship strategy in the Western United States. Journal of Forestry 120, 588–603.
| Institutionalizing the United States Forest Service’s shared stewardship strategy in the Western United States.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McWethy DB, Schoennagel T, Higuera PE, Krawchuk M, Harvey BJ, Metcalf EC, Schultz C, Miller C, Metcalf AL, Buma B, Virapongse A, Kulig JC, Stedman RC, Ratajczak Z, Nelson CR, Kolden C (2019) Rethinking resilience to wildfire. Nature Sustainability 2, 797–804.
| Rethinking resilience to wildfire.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Miller RK, Field CB, Mach KJ (2020) Barriers and enablers for prescribed burns for wildfire management in California. Nature Sustainability 3, 101–109.
| Barriers and enablers for prescribed burns for wildfire management in California.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Noonan-Wright E, Seielstad CA (2021) Patterns of wildfire risk in the United States from systematic operational risk assessments: How risk is characterised by land managers. International Journal of Wildland Fire 30, 569–584.
| Patterns of wildfire risk in the United States from systematic operational risk assessments: How risk is characterised by land managers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
North MP, Stephens SL, Collins BM, Agee JK, Aplet G, Franklin JF, Fulé PZ (2015) Reform forest fire management. Science 349, 1280–1281.
| Reform forest fire management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nowell B, Steelman TA (2012) The role of responder networks in promoting community resilience: Toward a measurement framework of network capacity. In ‘Disaster Resiliency’. (Eds N Kapucu, CV Hawkins, FI Rivera) pp. 232–257. (Routledge: New York, USA)
Olson Jr M (1971) ‘The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups.’ (Harvard University Press: London, UK)
Ostrom E (2011) Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal 39, 7–27.
| Background on the institutional analysis and development framework.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Parker C, Scott S, Geddes A (2019) ‘Snowball Sampling.’ (SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA)
| Crossref |.
Patton MQ (2002) ‘Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods.’ (SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA)
Platt E, Charnley S, Bailey JD, Cramer LA (2022) Adaptive governance in fire-prone landscapes. Society & Natural Resources 155, 1–19.
| Adaptive governance in fire-prone landscapes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Saldaña J (2015) ‘The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers.’ (SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, USA)
Schultz CA, Moseley C (2019) Collaborations and capacities to transform fire management. Science 366, 38–40.
| Collaborations and capacities to transform fire management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Schultz CA, Abrams JB, Davis EJ, Cheng AS, Huber-Stearns HR, Moseley C (2021) Disturbance shapes the US forest governance frontier: A review and conceptual framework for understanding governance change. Ambio 50, 2168–2182.
| Disturbance shapes the US forest governance frontier: A review and conceptual framework for understanding governance change.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek K (2021) Interpretive structural modelling of inter-agency collaboration risk in public safety networks. Quality & Quantity 56, 1193–1221.
| Interpretive structural modelling of inter-agency collaboration risk in public safety networks.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Steelman T (2016) US wildfire governance as social-ecological problem. Ecology and Society 21, 3
| US wildfire governance as social-ecological problem.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Steelman T, Nowell B (2019) Evidence of effectiveness in the Cohesive Strategy: Measuring and improving wildfire response. International Journal of Wildland Fire 28, 267–274.
| Evidence of effectiveness in the Cohesive Strategy: Measuring and improving wildfire response.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Steen-Adams MM, Abrams JB, Huber-Stearns HR, Bone C, Moseley C (2021) Leveraging administrative capacity to manage landscape-scale, cross-boundary disturbance in the Black Hills: What roles for federal, state, local, and nongovernmental partners? Journal of Forestry 120, 86–105.
| Leveraging administrative capacity to manage landscape-scale, cross-boundary disturbance in the Black Hills: What roles for federal, state, local, and nongovernmental partners?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
