Western wildfires Survey results

The email based survey was sent to actors actively engaged with western wildfire challenges. We stratified our sample by (1) actors who have tweeted about wildfire in western states at least 10 times between 2020-2021,(2) actors whose name appears in newspapers with respect to wildfire between 2020-2021. we included actors that comprise the top ten percent of activity in each of the 11 states. We also included actors who appear in newspapers in multiple western states. (3) actors who have co-authored at least 3 Community Wildfire Protection Plans between 2010-2020. (4) Active western wildfire chiefs.

Geography: Representation from 11 states (AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, NV, OR, UT, WA and WY). Oregon, Califonia, and Colorado are disproportionally represented
Scale: Most representation at the state (31%) and local (35%) level, less regional (18%) and National (16%)
Sector: Over-representation by the government (48%), significant representation from academia (26%) and NGOs (19%), and significant under-representation of tribes and private entities.
Topics: see figure. Heavy representation by actors engaged in environmental protections, planning and industry, and landscape treatments. Poor representation in insurance and infrastructure.

Statement level

The survey includes 32 pairs of statements. Participants could select the left or right statement, both, or neither.

Areas with a lot of agreement.

The majority of people are thinking similarly about this aspect of the western wildfire crisis. More than two thirds (66%) of the participants agreed with this statement:

We should use unplanned ignitions under good conditions as an opportunity to restore ecological function. // As opposed to: We should not use unplanned ignitions to burn for resource purposes as it is a dangerous and costly means to manage our forests.
To manage the long-term health impacts of wildfire smoke, we need to increase the amount of prescribed burning on the landscape now. // As opposed to: The short-term health impacts from smoke may outweigh any long-term potential benefits of using prescribed burning to reduce future wildfire risk.
Liability reform is needed to incentivize prescribed burning practices. // As opposed to: Escaped fires from prescribed burning are too high of a liability.
The more we suppress fires, the more expensive and risky the conditions. // As opposed to: The more we suppress fires, the less expensive and risky the conditions.
Fuels reduction, in the form of thinning and prescribed burning, is our best tool against wildfires. // As opposed to: Climate mitigation, in the form of emissions reductions, is our best tool against wildfires.
To the extent it is safe, we should try to let fires burn in the wildlands. // As opposed to: To the extent it is safe, we should try to stop all fires in the wildlands as soon as possible.
To put fire back in balance, we need to use all the tools available to us to invite more fire to the landscape. // As opposed to: To put fire back in balance, we need to control and minimize the amount of fire on the landscape.
The co-benefits of fuels reduction measures are enormous, we need to better account for these benefits instead of trying to make fuels reduction measures pay for themselves. // As opposed to: Fuels reduction measures need to ‘pay for themselves’ or they will not be a long term viable solution.
Economically viable forest treatments are needed to remove hazardous fuels and create a healthier forest environment. // As opposed to: Coupling fuels reduction treatments with profit-driven forest practices usually ends up increasing fire risk
Fire as a means of fuels management is the most effective way to protect our forests. // As opposed to: Fire as a means of fuels management is a waste of forest resources.

Areas with a lot of divergence.

For every person who thinks one way, there is another who has a fairly different perspective. More than 20% of the survey participants selected the left choice and more than 20% selected the right choice:

There are viable management options that allow us to dramatically reduce smoke and emissions due to wildfires. // There is no future in which we do not see dramatically more smoke, in more areas, for longer periods of time
There are a lot of opinions out there. Our forest and fire management plans must be grounded in science. // Science is important, but we must incorporate multiple types of knowledge.
Foremost, we need to focus our efforts on hardening the wildland urban interface // Foremost, we need to focus our efforts on managing our wildland forests
Western wildfires pose an existential crisis to our forests. We cannot separate the health of our forests from the impact on communities. // Fire in wildlands is not a disaster. Fire in homes and communities is absolutely a disaster.
Our wildfire problems are tied to persistent socio-economic inequities. // Our wildfire problems are tied to overly restrictive environmental and economic policy.
Insurance premiums need to be regulated to protect homeowners. // The insurance industry has the financial incentive to develop and deploy the best, most accurate models so they can properly manage their risks.
Insurance reform helps stabilize the market and reduces risk to homeowners affected by disasters. // Putting a ceiling on insurance premiums, or a moratorium on non-renewals, causes a market distortion and covers up the true price signal of risk.
It is unrealistic to restrict development in high risk fire hazard zones. //We should restrict development in high risk fire hazard zones.
Home mitigation practices such as home hardening and defensible space are the most effective means to protect communities from wildfires. // Fuels reductions practices in the wildlands, provide firefighters a chance to stop the fire before it reaches the community, and are the most effective means to protect communities from wildfires.
Environmental regulations are preventing necessary work from happening on the landscape. // Environmental regulations and standards are more important than ever

A handful of interesting statements:

These results surprised us.

More than 10% of actors agreed with the statement: We need to decolonize fire management. We need to de-fund the Forest Service. We need to tear down the system and build another one.
More than 50% of participants agreed with the statement: Fire managers need to participate in Indigenous-led trainings and learn from communities who have successfully managed fire in the West for millennia
More than 40% of participants agreed with the statement: Environmental regulations are preventing necessary work from happening on the landscape.
The two most agreed upon statements are that: “The co-benefits of fuels reduction measures are enormous, we need to better account for these benefits instead of trying to make fuels reduction measures pay for themselves.” And that “Fire as a means of fuels management is the most effective way to protect our forests.”

Narrative level

If we look at the different narratives people tell, we can see that the most dominant narrative represented by survey participants is the “manage” narrative, (31 out of 84 survey participants). There is also a considerable representation of the “adapt (9), “regulate” (8), and “revitalize” (12) narratives.

However, each person tells multiple stories, representing a blend of all nine narratives. We found that, on average, nearly 72% of the statements that correlate with a “manage” narrative resonate with participants who took the survey. On the other hand, less than 40% of the statements associated with the “work”, “market”, and “control” narratives resonated with survey participants.

Comparison of email survey to workshop participants

Survey Results – from the 2022 Cohesive Strategy Workshop attendees

last updated 11.17.2022 8:00AM EST

Characterization of who took the survey

Total number of surveys completed: 61 (as of Nov 16 12:01am EST)

Geography: We had equal representation from all 11 western states (OR and CA most represented at 15%, and WY, UT, NV least represented at 5%).
Scale: We had equal representation across 4 scales (local, state, regional, and national).
Sector: Survey participants were highly skewed towards government (more than 50%), and least so with private industry (8%) and tribal representation (5%)
Landscape: A little more than a third of the participants work in forests, grasslands/rangelands, and the WUI. 7% only forests and another 28% forests and WUI.
Topics: There is a wide diversity of topics covered by survey participants. Two topics that were not represented are preparation and mitigation, and infrastructure. There was also minimal representation of regulation and insurance, equity, and traditional fire culture.

Statement level

The survey includes 32 pairs of statements. Participants could select the left or right statement, both, or neither.

More than two thirds of the participants agreed with this statement:

These are areas where there is a lot of agreement. The majority of people are thinking similarly about the western wildfire crisis.

We should use unplanned ignitions under good conditions as an opportunity to restore ecological function // As opposed to: we should not use unplanned ignitions to burn for resource purposes as it is a dangerous and costly means to manage our forests.
We need to increase the role of fire on the landscape // As opposed to: We need to decrease the amount of fire on the landscape
Liability reform is needed to incentivize prescribed burning practices // Escaped fires from prescribed burning are too high of a liability
Fire as a means of fuels management is the most effective way to protect our forests // Fire as a means of fuels management is a waste of forest resources.
Thinning decreases wildfire risk // Thinning increases wildfire risk
The co-benefits of fuels reduction measures are enormous, we need to better account for these benefits instead of trying to make fuels reduction measures pay for themselves // Fuels reduction measures need to “pay for themselves” or they will not be a long term viable solution.
We need to restore the function and mission of the Forest Service. We need to provide the forest service with the resources and freedom to manage our forests and once again become a world leader in forest science // We need to decolonize fire management. We need to de-fund the Forest Service. We need to tear down the system and build another one.
Fuels reduction, in the form of thinning and prescribed burning, is our best tool against wildfires // Climate mitigation, in the form of emissions reductions, is our best tool against wildfires
The more we suppress fires, the more expensive and risky the conditions // The more we suppress fires, the less expensive and risky the conditions
To manage the long term health impacts from wildfire smoke, we need to increase the amount of prescribed burning on the landscape now // The short term health impacts from smoke may outweigh any long term potential benefits of using prescribed burning to reduce future wildfire risk.
To the extent it is safe, we should try to let fires burn in the wildland // As opposed to: To the extent it is safe, we should try to stop all fires in the wildlands as soon as possible
To put fire back in balance, we need to use all the tools available to us to invite more fire to the landscape // As opposed to: To put fire back in balance, we need to control and minimize the amount of fire on the landscape.

More than 20% of the survey participants selected the left choice and more than 20% selected the right choice:

These are areas with a lot of divergence, for every person who thinks one way, there is another who has a fairly different perspective.

There are viable management options that allow us to dramatically reduce smoke and emissions due to wildfires // There is no future in which we do not see dramatically more smoke, in more areas, for longer periods of time
There are a lot of opinions out there. Our forest and fire management plans must be grounded in science // Science is important, but we must incorporate multiple types of knowledge
Fire in wildlands is not a disaster. Fire in homes and communities is absolutely a disaster // Western wildfires pose an existential crisis to our forests. We cannot separate the health of our forests from the impact on communities.
The insurance industry has the financial incentive to develop and deploy the best, most accurate models so they can properly manage their risks // Insurance premiums need to be regulated to protect homeowners
We should restrict development in high risk fire hazard zones // It is unrealistic to restrict development in high risk fire hazard zones.
The communities most affected by wildfire are also least likely to recover from the long-term financial stress following a disaster // Communities most affected by wildfire have chosen to live in high risk fire hazard areas. The cost of their home is a reflection of that risk.
Justice means vulnerable populations don't disproportionally bear the burden of the Western wildfire crisis. // Justice means wildfire protection and recovery is the responsibility of communities living in the WUI, and not taxpayers living miles away.

More than a third of the participants selected both statements:

These are areas where a lot of people think both sides of the conflict are important. These are usually big “it depends” areas.

We need to educate communities about the importance role of fire // We need to learn to listen to communities about what fire means to them
We need to prioritize fuels treatment in places that already have the capacity to do the work // We need to prioritize fuels treatment in underserved communities and vulnerable populations
Foremost, we need to focus our efforts on hardening the wildland urban interface // Foremost, we need to focus our efforts on managing our wildland forests

Narrative level

If we look at the different narratives people tell, we can see that the most dominant narrative at the workshop is the “manage” narrative, (30 out of 61 survey participants). There is also a considerable representation of the “adapt (9), “regulate” (8), and “revitalize” (6) narratives.

However, each attendees tells multiple stories, representing a blend of all nine narratives. We found that, on average, nearly 80% of the statements that correlate with a “manage” narrative resonate with workshop attendees who took the survey. On the other hand, less than 40% of the statements associated with the “work”, “market”, and “control” narratives resonated with workshop attendees.

If we look at a cumulative spider diagram of everyone’s responses, we can visually see that there is immense diversity in the stories that people tell. It will be interesting to see how this distribution compares to the types of stories being told by people working on wildfire issues in western forest that are not associated with the Cohesive Strategy.