Categorizing the Social Context of the Wildland Urban Interface: Adaptive Capacity for Wildfire and Community “Archetypes”

Understanding the local context that shapes collective response to wildfire risk continues to be a challenge for scientists and policymakers. This study utilizes and expands on a conceptual approach for understanding adaptive capacity to wildfire in a comparison of 18 past case studies. The intent i...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Forest science 2015-04, Vol.61 (2), p.298-310
Hauptverfasser: Paveglio, Travis B., Moseley, Cassandra, Carroll, Matthew S., Williams, Daniel R., Davis, Emily Jane, Fischer, A. Paige
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 310
container_issue 2
container_start_page 298
container_title Forest science
container_volume 61
creator Paveglio, Travis B.
Moseley, Cassandra
Carroll, Matthew S.
Williams, Daniel R.
Davis, Emily Jane
Fischer, A. Paige
description Understanding the local context that shapes collective response to wildfire risk continues to be a challenge for scientists and policymakers. This study utilizes and expands on a conceptual approach for understanding adaptive capacity to wildfire in a comparison of 18 past case studies. The intent is to determine whether comparison of local social context and community characteristics across cases can identify community "archetypes" that approach wildfire planning and mitigation in consistently different ways. Identification of community archetypes serves as a potential strategy for collaborating with diverse populations at risk from wildfire and designing tailored messages related to wildfire risk mitigation. Our analysis uncovered four consistent community archetypes that differ in terms of the local social context and community characteristics that continue to influence response to wildfire risk. Differences among community archetypes include local communication networks, reasons for place attachment or community identity, distrust of government, and actions undertaken to address issues of forest health and esthetics. Results indicate that the methodological approach advanced in this study can be used to draw more consistent lessons across case studies and provide the means to test different communication strategies among archetypes.
doi_str_mv 10.5849/forsci.14-036
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1690365956</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3722840671</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c304t-d882f1cfed53280a972ea9314d5ca69dea87eac5a9f440331767ba2057df87a33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkM1OwzAQhC0EEqVw5G6Jc8CO7cTmVkX8VKrEASq4RVvHbl21cXBcRDmgPgi8XJ-EtOW00s43u6NB6JKSayG5urE-tNpdU54Qlh2hHlVMJixn8hj1CKEiybl6O0VnbTsnhEhG0h76LiCaqQ_uy9VTHGcGP3vtYIELX0fzGbG3--2rW1QLqCs8DhOo8bATgwVtbvGggia6D4MLaEC7uMZdjj1vXTB45yn8crmqd9J28zMIembiujHtdvN7jk4sLFpz8T_7aHx_91I8JqOnh2ExGCWaER6TSsrUUm1NJVgqCag8NaAY5ZXQkKnKgMwNaAHKck4Yo3mWTyAlIq-szIGxPro63G2Cf1-ZNpZzvwp197KkmerqEkpkHZUcKB182wZjyya4JYR1SUm5q7g8VFxSXnYe9gcnanPq</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1690365956</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Categorizing the Social Context of the Wildland Urban Interface: Adaptive Capacity for Wildfire and Community “Archetypes”</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Paveglio, Travis B. ; Moseley, Cassandra ; Carroll, Matthew S. ; Williams, Daniel R. ; Davis, Emily Jane ; Fischer, A. Paige</creator><creatorcontrib>Paveglio, Travis B. ; Moseley, Cassandra ; Carroll, Matthew S. ; Williams, Daniel R. ; Davis, Emily Jane ; Fischer, A. Paige</creatorcontrib><description>Understanding the local context that shapes collective response to wildfire risk continues to be a challenge for scientists and policymakers. This study utilizes and expands on a conceptual approach for understanding adaptive capacity to wildfire in a comparison of 18 past case studies. The intent is to determine whether comparison of local social context and community characteristics across cases can identify community "archetypes" that approach wildfire planning and mitigation in consistently different ways. Identification of community archetypes serves as a potential strategy for collaborating with diverse populations at risk from wildfire and designing tailored messages related to wildfire risk mitigation. Our analysis uncovered four consistent community archetypes that differ in terms of the local social context and community characteristics that continue to influence response to wildfire risk. Differences among community archetypes include local communication networks, reasons for place attachment or community identity, distrust of government, and actions undertaken to address issues of forest health and esthetics. Results indicate that the methodological approach advanced in this study can be used to draw more consistent lessons across case studies and provide the means to test different communication strategies among archetypes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0015-749X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-3738</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5849/forsci.14-036</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bethesda: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Forest &amp; brush fires ; Grass roots movement ; Influence ; Science ; Social sciences ; Studies ; Suburban areas</subject><ispartof>Forest science, 2015-04, Vol.61 (2), p.298-310</ispartof><rights>Copyright Society of American Foresters Apr 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c304t-d882f1cfed53280a972ea9314d5ca69dea87eac5a9f440331767ba2057df87a33</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Paveglio, Travis B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moseley, Cassandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carroll, Matthew S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Daniel R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Emily Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischer, A. Paige</creatorcontrib><title>Categorizing the Social Context of the Wildland Urban Interface: Adaptive Capacity for Wildfire and Community “Archetypes”</title><title>Forest science</title><description>Understanding the local context that shapes collective response to wildfire risk continues to be a challenge for scientists and policymakers. This study utilizes and expands on a conceptual approach for understanding adaptive capacity to wildfire in a comparison of 18 past case studies. The intent is to determine whether comparison of local social context and community characteristics across cases can identify community "archetypes" that approach wildfire planning and mitigation in consistently different ways. Identification of community archetypes serves as a potential strategy for collaborating with diverse populations at risk from wildfire and designing tailored messages related to wildfire risk mitigation. Our analysis uncovered four consistent community archetypes that differ in terms of the local social context and community characteristics that continue to influence response to wildfire risk. Differences among community archetypes include local communication networks, reasons for place attachment or community identity, distrust of government, and actions undertaken to address issues of forest health and esthetics. Results indicate that the methodological approach advanced in this study can be used to draw more consistent lessons across case studies and provide the means to test different communication strategies among archetypes.</description><subject>Forest &amp; brush fires</subject><subject>Grass roots movement</subject><subject>Influence</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Social sciences</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Suburban areas</subject><issn>0015-749X</issn><issn>1938-3738</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNotkM1OwzAQhC0EEqVw5G6Jc8CO7cTmVkX8VKrEASq4RVvHbl21cXBcRDmgPgi8XJ-EtOW00s43u6NB6JKSayG5urE-tNpdU54Qlh2hHlVMJixn8hj1CKEiybl6O0VnbTsnhEhG0h76LiCaqQ_uy9VTHGcGP3vtYIELX0fzGbG3--2rW1QLqCs8DhOo8bATgwVtbvGggia6D4MLaEC7uMZdjj1vXTB45yn8crmqd9J28zMIembiujHtdvN7jk4sLFpz8T_7aHx_91I8JqOnh2ExGCWaER6TSsrUUm1NJVgqCag8NaAY5ZXQkKnKgMwNaAHKck4Yo3mWTyAlIq-szIGxPro63G2Cf1-ZNpZzvwp197KkmerqEkpkHZUcKB182wZjyya4JYR1SUm5q7g8VFxSXnYe9gcnanPq</recordid><startdate>20150401</startdate><enddate>20150401</enddate><creator>Paveglio, Travis B.</creator><creator>Moseley, Cassandra</creator><creator>Carroll, Matthew S.</creator><creator>Williams, Daniel R.</creator><creator>Davis, Emily Jane</creator><creator>Fischer, A. Paige</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQGLB</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150401</creationdate><title>Categorizing the Social Context of the Wildland Urban Interface: Adaptive Capacity for Wildfire and Community “Archetypes”</title><author>Paveglio, Travis B. ; Moseley, Cassandra ; Carroll, Matthew S. ; Williams, Daniel R. ; Davis, Emily Jane ; Fischer, A. Paige</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c304t-d882f1cfed53280a972ea9314d5ca69dea87eac5a9f440331767ba2057df87a33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Forest &amp; brush fires</topic><topic>Grass roots movement</topic><topic>Influence</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Social sciences</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Suburban areas</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Paveglio, Travis B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moseley, Cassandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carroll, Matthew S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Daniel R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Emily Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischer, A. Paige</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Applied &amp; Life Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Forest science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Paveglio, Travis B.</au><au>Moseley, Cassandra</au><au>Carroll, Matthew S.</au><au>Williams, Daniel R.</au><au>Davis, Emily Jane</au><au>Fischer, A. Paige</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Categorizing the Social Context of the Wildland Urban Interface: Adaptive Capacity for Wildfire and Community “Archetypes”</atitle><jtitle>Forest science</jtitle><date>2015-04-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>61</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>298</spage><epage>310</epage><pages>298-310</pages><issn>0015-749X</issn><eissn>1938-3738</eissn><abstract>Understanding the local context that shapes collective response to wildfire risk continues to be a challenge for scientists and policymakers. This study utilizes and expands on a conceptual approach for understanding adaptive capacity to wildfire in a comparison of 18 past case studies. The intent is to determine whether comparison of local social context and community characteristics across cases can identify community "archetypes" that approach wildfire planning and mitigation in consistently different ways. Identification of community archetypes serves as a potential strategy for collaborating with diverse populations at risk from wildfire and designing tailored messages related to wildfire risk mitigation. Our analysis uncovered four consistent community archetypes that differ in terms of the local social context and community characteristics that continue to influence response to wildfire risk. Differences among community archetypes include local communication networks, reasons for place attachment or community identity, distrust of government, and actions undertaken to address issues of forest health and esthetics. Results indicate that the methodological approach advanced in this study can be used to draw more consistent lessons across case studies and provide the means to test different communication strategies among archetypes.</abstract><cop>Bethesda</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.5849/forsci.14-036</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0015-749X
ispartof Forest science, 2015-04, Vol.61 (2), p.298-310
issn 0015-749X
1938-3738
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1690365956
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals
subjects Forest & brush fires
Grass roots movement
Influence
Science
Social sciences
Studies
Suburban areas
title Categorizing the Social Context of the Wildland Urban Interface: Adaptive Capacity for Wildfire and Community “Archetypes”
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T19%3A35%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Categorizing%20the%20Social%20Context%20of%20the%20Wildland%20Urban%20Interface:%20Adaptive%20Capacity%20for%20Wildfire%20and%20Community%20%E2%80%9CArchetypes%E2%80%9D&rft.jtitle=Forest%20science&rft.au=Paveglio,%20Travis%20B.&rft.date=2015-04-01&rft.volume=61&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=298&rft.epage=310&rft.pages=298-310&rft.issn=0015-749X&rft.eissn=1938-3738&rft_id=info:doi/10.5849/forsci.14-036&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3722840671%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1690365956&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true