Exploring relationships between perceived suppression capabilities and resident performance of wildfire mitigations.

Increased wildfire activity has led to renewed interest in enhancing local capacity to reduce wildfire risk in residential areas. Local fire departments (LFDs) are often the first responders to rural wildfires. However, LFDs may also struggle to address service demands in the growing wildland urban interface, including increasing numbers of wildfire incidents and changes in area socio-demographics (e.g., aging populations) or culture (e.g., decreasing volunteerism, new residents). We used a mixed-mode survey (n = 770) to explore rural perceptions of various fire service organizations (FSOs), including LFDs, in wildfire-prone areas of northeastern Washington State, USA. We also explore relationships between perceptions of LFD capabilities or capacity (e.g., personnel, LFD ability to respond to private property during a wildfire event) and resident performance of eleven wildfire risk mitigation activities that contribute to home defense (e.g., development of a water supply, installing sprinklers). We found that study participants have relatively high levels of trust in LFD's to respond to a wildfire event on their properties. This trust is also slightly higher than the amount of trust placed in other FSOs (e.g., state, federal, private contractors). Respondents also largely understand that LFDs do not have sufficient capacity or capability to respond when wildfire events impact multiple private properties in their area. Trust in LFDs was significantly and negatively correlated with resident installation of fire-resistant siding, installation of sprinklers on their home, and placing firewood or lumber more than 30 feet (∼9 m) from their dwelling. Similarly, respondents' perceptions of LFD capacity and capabilities was significantly and negatively correlated with purchasing a generator and stacking firewood more than 30 feet (∼9 m) from their home. Our results suggest that perceptions of FSOs have the potential associations with resident performance of select wildfire mitigation actions (e.g., firewood placement, installation of non-flammable siding). However, they also were not significantly related to many other mitigations suggested for residents to complete as part of broader wildfire management strategies (e.g., driveway clearance, water supply establishment, safe zone creation).

Assessing influences on social vulnerability to wildfire using surveys, spatial data and wildfire simulations.

A growing body of research focuses on identifying patterns among human populations most at risk from hazards such as wildfire and the factors that help explain performance of mitigations that can help reduce that risk. Emerging policy surrounding wildfire management emphasizes the need to better understand such social vulnerability-or human populations' potential exposure to and sensitivity from wildfire-related impacts, including their ability to reduce negative impacts from the hazard. Studies of social vulnerability to wildfire often pair secondary demographic data with a variety of vegetation and wildfire simulation models to map potential risk. However, many of the assumptions made by those researchers about the demographic, spatial or perceptual factors that influence social vulnerability to wildfire have not been fully evaluated or tested against objective measures of potential wildfire risk. The research presented here utilizes self-reported surveys, GIS data, and wildfire simulations to test the relationships between select perceptual, demographic, and property characteristics of property owners against empirically simulated metrics for potential wildfire related damages or exposure. We also evaluate how those characteristics relate to property owners' performance of mitigations or support for fire management. Our results suggest that parcel characteristics provide the most significant explanation of variability in wildfire exposure, sensitivity and overall wildfire risk, while the positive relationship between income or property values and components of social vulnerability stands in contrast to typical assumptions from existing literature. Respondents' views about agency or government management helped explain a significant amount of variance in wildfire sensitivity, while the importance of wildfire risk in selecting a residence was an important influence on mitigation action. We use these and other results from our effort to discuss updated considerations for determining social vulnerability to wildfire and articulate alternative means to collect such information.