RISK CO-MANAGEMENT ON THE 2017 WILDFIRES Toddi A. Steelman, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
risk co management on the 2017 wildfires
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

RISK CO-MANAGEMENT ON THE 2017 WILDFIRES Toddi A. Steelman, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 18, 2022 226 likes •322 views

RISK CO-MANAGEMENT ON THE 2017 WILDFIRES Toddi A. Steelman, University of Saskatchewan & North Carolina State University Branda Nowell, North Carolina State University Anne-Lise Velez, Virginia Tech http://www.firechasers.ncsu.edu/

slide-1
SLIDE 1

RISK CO-MANAGEMENT ON THE 2017 WILDFIRES

Toddi A. Steelman, University of Saskatchewan & North Carolina State University Branda Nowell, North Carolina State University Anne-Lise Velez, Virginia Tech http://www.firechasers.ncsu.edu/

slide-2
SLIDE 2

COHESIVE STRATEGY & WILDFIRE RESPONSE

 Large wildfires ignore political & jurisdictional boundaries  Rising expectations about who will be involved in wildfire response  Growing recognition of the need for co-management practices  Competing values, interests & priorities  How do we reconcile differing and sometimes competing mission/needs?

What are these differences?

Where are they most prevalent? Cohesive Strategy Goals

  • Fire Adapted Communities
  • Safe and Effective Wildfire Response
  • Resilient Landscapes
slide-3
SLIDE 3

10 MOST COMPLEX WILDFIRES IN US 2017

 Most complex = multi-jurisdictional

 Federal, state, local and private interests

 Federal led fires, state led fires  6 states– 6 GACCs  Preliminary evidence

 6 wildfires to date  4 more to come

Taken Sept. 5, 2011 in Bastrop, TX of the Bastrop Complex Fire. Credit: Michael Rose via Flickr.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

10 ITEM SURVEY– CHARACTERISTICS OF WILDFIRE CO-MANAGEMENT

  • 1. A coordinated set of fire management objectives were agreed upon among all affected jurisdictions
  • 2. All concerned jurisdictions prioritized maintaining good communication among jurisdictions
  • 3. Credit for success and effort was shared among jurisdictions during public meetings and media events
  • 4. There was a general willingness across affected jurisdictions to offer assistance to other jurisdictions
  • 5. “Borrowed resources” were released in a timely fashion to minimize burden on the lending agency
  • 6. Critical values at risk were broadly understood by all major stakeholders
  • 7. Efforts to protect identified values were appropriate given available resources
  • 8. The overall strategy taken in managing this fire was appropriate
  • 9. Local resources were incorporated into the incident management operations
  • 10. Public information was coordinated among cooperating jurisdictions to ensure continuity of the message
slide-5
SLIDE 5

SHARED PERSPECTIVES: WHAT DIMENSIONS OF CO-MANAGEMENT ARE WORKING?

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

All concerned jurisdictions prioritized maintaining good communication among jurisdictions (n=37) NS There was a general willingness across affected jurisdictions to offer assistance to other jurisdictions (n=37) NS Credit for success and effort was shared among jurisdictions during public meetings and media events (n=36) NS Federal Local State Private

General agreement with no significant differences among jurisdictions NS = no significant difference among jurisdictions 1 = most agree, 5 = most disagree

slide-6
SLIDE 6

DIVERGENT PERSPECTIVES: WHERE DO WE NEED MORE WORK IN CO-MANAGEMENT?

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

The overall strategy taken in managing this fire was appropriate (n=36) *** Local resources were incorporated into the incident management operations (n=37) ** Critical values at risk were broadly understood by all major stakeholders (n=37) ** Federal Local State Private

Federal and local actors tend to agree; Private and state actors tend to disagree Significant differences among jurisdictions: * = .10 to .05, ** = .05 to .01, *** = .01or lower 1 = most agree, 5 = most disagree

slide-7
SLIDE 7

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR COHESIVE STRATEGY

Offering assistance, good communication, sharing credit for success

Well practiced, more routine (mutual aid agreements, communication practices, pre-fire work)

Appropriateness of strategy, incorporating local resources, understanding critical values at risk

Reflection of shifting risk management strategies (Big box strategy, indirect vs. going more direct, aggressive)

Divergent understanding and prioritization of risks (relative importance of commercial resource values i.e., timber, rangeland)

“Feds will go protect houses but they won’t protect my investment in my timber, which is uninsured”

“States will put fire fighters in places to protect timber and I do not want to take those risks” 

Different risk tolerance perceptions based on experience and location

“I live here and fight this kind of fire every year. It is not a risk for me to go in there and do this”

State and private most disagree

Competing missions, multiple objectives (feds) vs. single objectives (state/private)

State and private need to be more assertive about needs

Feds need to be more aware of difference

slide-8
SLIDE 8

THANK YOU!

Questions?

Funded by the Joint Fire Science Program. Grant number JFSP 17-1-06-14 L17AC00232. 2017