McCaffrey was particularly impressed by the breadth of perspectives presented during the workshop. Each presentation offered unique insights that were especially enlightening—from demographic considerations (Miranda Mockrin, see Chapter 4) to data collected to categorize community adaptation strategies (Emily Schlickman, see Chapter 4), and advocacy for an asset-based approach for working with communities (Beth Rose Middleton Manning, see Chapter 4). These approaches challenge conventional problem-solving paradigms and put emphasis on leveraging community strengths rather than viewing them solely as vulnerable entities.

ADDRESSING CRITICAL SCIENTIFIC NEEDS IN FIRE RESEARCH: LONG-TERM STUDIES, STANDARDIZED DATA, AND SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC MODELS

The workshop also highlighted critical scientific needs in fire research. McCaffrey emphasized that long-term studies are crucial for understanding enduring fire impacts on health, ecology, and community planning. Pointing to the need to figure out how to get long-term research done, she noted that Long Term Ecological Research (LTERs) sites may be a potential guiding model.

Another theme McCaffrey noted—a consistent concern in the fire world for a long time now—is the need for better standardized and consistently collected data to improve understanding. She underscored the challenges researchers face in synthesizing reliable information across diverse and often sparse datasets.

Regarding what constitutes “good” and “better” planning, discussions on land use planning highlighted the need for clearer definitions and metrics of success. Debates around denser versus dispersed development underscored the complexity of balancing fire risk mitigation with community resilience goals. McCaffrey said this raises the following questions: When we talk about better land use planning, what does that mean? Better in what way? In what sense? What are we trying to minimize? Are we aiming to decrease suppression costs, in which case denser development might make sense? Or to decrease house loss, in which case denser development may increase risk? These questions necessitate a deeper examination and more data, in turn calling for defining what a community with better land use planning looks like and how these definitions might vary by ecosystem or topography.

The economic dimensions of fire management also surfaced as an area requiring more research. McCaffrey emphasized the need for sustainable economic models that integrate fire management into local economies.

EXPLORING THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN FIRE MANAGEMENT AND RURAL ECONOMIES

McCaffrey noted that another area receiving attention during the workshop and meriting further consideration is the role of rural economies in fire management. Beth Rose Middleton Manning (see Chapter 4) touched upon aspects of this discussion earlier, particularly regarding environmental justice in rural areas. It is crucial, McCaffrey emphasized, to explore how fire dynamics intersect with rural economies. Many rural regions lack the necessary workforce to effectively manage fire-prone landscapes. This challenge is compounded if residents relocate away from high-fire hazard zones, leaving rural areas without the labor force needed for landscape management. Given this situation, she called for envisioning what a robust rural economy supporting healthy landscapes might look like. This involves ensuring that there exist in these regions sustainable livelihoods, adequate training, and viable job opportunities.

Furthermore, the workshop highlighted the diverse impacts of wildfires on rural economies. Marian Weber (see Chapter 6) suggested that certain local groups benefit economically from fire-related activities—although these benefits are not fully understood. Conversely, other sectors, for example recreation, may suffer significant financial losses during fire events due to business closures. In commenting on the impacts of wildfire smoke, McCaffrey emphasized not only its critical health implications but also the economic repercussions.

QUESTIONING ASSUMPTIONS: THE NEED FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES IN FIRE DATA ADEQUACY AND HOMEOWNER MITIGATION

McCaffrey pointed out that it is essential to question assumptions regarding data adequacy across different fields. While one discipline may feel adequately informed, others may reveal significant gaps in understanding. She noted, for example, that understanding homeowner mitigation behaviors must go beyond mere economic rationale; it involves complex factors that economic metrics cannot fully capture.

EQUITY IN FIRE MANAGEMENT: ADDRESSING UNCONSCIOUS BIAS AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION

Planning committee member Frank Lake asked if in fire planning and resource allocation, there might be an unconscious bias, with regard to fuels treatment and fire risk reduction, specifically favoring more economically secure housing areas over tribal and poorer regions.

Citing conversations with fuels planners, McCaffrey said they strongly deny any such bias. However, she said it is important to note that her sample is not representative of the entire country. She would not be surprised if such biases exist in some places—but she urged caution about assuming a universal trend toward prioritizing wealthier communities.

Planning committee member Gary Machlis noted that a pertinent counter-example is the response of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to Hurricane Sandy. Studies by several anthropologists have shown that by heavily focusing its recovery efforts on privileged and wealthy areas, FEMA neglected adjacent less affluent communities.¹ This illustrates, the participant emphasized, how privilege can be reinforced and elite interests can be prioritized in disaster recovery situations.

Regarding fuels treatments, McCaffrey said her experience suggests that these decisions are generally based on where planners believe they will be most effective, or more practical to implement, rather than on the economic status of the communities involved. However, she noted there is a dynamic, tending to favor wealthier areas, by which funding is often allocated to communities with existing capacity and resources. For instance, to demonstrate effective use of resources, agencies might prefer to fund communities already engaged in fire mitigation. McCaffery noted that this has resulted in more funding for places already active in mitigation efforts, such as Boulder, Santa Fe, and Ashland.

Michael Wara added that in California the grant-based funding model inadvertently favors affluent communities because these communities have the resources to hire grant writers. This disparity highlights the need for strategies to build capacity in less affluent communities in order to ensure a more equitable distribution of resources.

McCaffrey noted that fuel managers typically focus on where they believe their treatments will be most effective. This often results in funds being directed toward areas with existing capacity. Middleton Manning (see Chapter 4) highlighted, and McCaffrey agreed with, the importance of building and enhancing capacity in under-resourced areas.

Additionally, as an alternative to the term “educate” when engaging with communities, McCaffrey suggested using “empower” or “engage” instead since these words emphasize a more interactive and collaborative approach.

An audience member acknowledged a robust body of social science literature on investment and mitigation. However, he expressed concern over the current levels of investment in home hardening and defensible space, arguing that while some strategies have proven effective in certain areas, a universal solution remains elusive.

McCaffrey concurred, noting the complexity of the issue and that a one-size-fits-all solution is unrealistic. She emphasized the need for increased resource investment, including funding for mitigation efforts and personnel dedicated to working with communities to identify the most effective local strategies. She stressed that the problem lies not so much in a lack of knowledge but in a reluctance to invest in the necessary resources.

Planning Committee member Ernesto Alvarado-Celestino discussed the disparity in funding allocation for fuel treatments on Native American reservations compared to other areas. He then noted that the Healthy Forests

___________________

¹ Medwinter, S. D. (2023). Ecologies of inequity: How disaster response reconstitutes race and class inequality. University of Georgia Press.

Restoration Act allocated money to communities and watersheds rather than fuel treatments. This led to some problems for some reservations; for example, the funding for the Yakama reservation in Washington State was reduced significantly because they did not have a wildland-urban interface problem since they live outside the forest.

McCaffrey commented on this discussion by highlighting the complexity of the funding issue, and how the decision-making process is multifaceted. It involves various factors, including who decides where the money goes and the authorities in place. At a local level, based on these dynamics, decisions can vary significantly.

Alvarado-Celestino added that during simultaneous fire-fighting efforts, resources tend to be directed toward wealthy communities. McCaffrey concurred with this observation, noting that resource allocation is often based on the “most values at risk,” which typically translates to the number of homes threatened. She acknowledged the inherent problems with this approach, including the definition of “values at risk.”

McCaffrey commented on the challenges of using data from incident reports, such as the 209 fire reporting forms, to make resource allocation decisions. Since these reports can be crafted to secure resources rather than provide an accurate assessment, they can be unreliable. She highlighted the importance of understanding how specific values at risk may differ between communities, such as some ranchers prioritizing protecting their fences over their homes. The effectiveness of incident management teams also can vary, she said, depending on their ability to engage with local communities and understand their unique needs.