Better Building Blocks
As researchers for the National Database of State and Local Wildfire Mitigation Programs, we began cataloging programs to reduce wildfire risk on private land in 2001. Over the years, more than 250 programs in 35 states were described at www.wildfireprograms.usda.gov, and we wondered about their relative success. Was there one type of program that wildfire managers would agree was the most effective? Did different programs work for different people in different states? Did states begin using one type of program and then, over a period of years, refine them because they found that something worked better? What forces are at play to make one program more effective than another?
Fuels reduction near homes in Colorado.
|
To explore these questions, in 2008 the researchers surveyed 11 state-level managers of wildfire risk-reduction programs in 11 states: Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.
All of those interviewed were extremely helpful, showing great enthusiasm for the jobs they are doing. The average length of time the managers have worked in the wildfire field in their state is 16 years. The goal of this research was to learn from the managers' years of experience and to obtain in-depth opinions on what works in terms of reducing wildfire risk in their states. The questions were open-ended; most could not be answered with short answers. The information we sought to gather was primarily qualitative — not quantitative — in nature, as effectiveness is the ability to get a desired change in real-world conditions.
The researchers conducted two prior studies in 2003 and 2005 to determine a framework for evaluating effectiveness. This study attempted to examine the concept with a few in-depth cases rather than in a large-scale statistical framework.
Of the 11 states, all had programs in existence prior to National Fire Plan (NFP). Most of the states started programs after a major fire had destroyed many homes. The predominance of the early programs centered on public education, with many producing a handbook for homeowners and builders. The table above shows the pre-NFP programs by program type.
Most of the managers described these early programs as being somewhat effective, primarily in the area of raising awareness. Standalone education programs in Alaska, California, Montana, Utah and Washington were all judged to be low in effectiveness. The Alaska manager described the effectiveness most succinctly with one-word answers. She described the early programs as "rudimentary" and their effectiveness level as "somewhat."
Interestingly, initial state efforts to mitigate wildfire risk varied greatly in approach. The primary emphasis was on homeowner education and fuel treatments in Florida, increased firefighting capacity in Georgia, educating fire officials working with the public in Maine, legislation creating a regulatory compliance program in Oregon, implementing a wildfire hazard risk-assessment program in Virginia, and an individual home inspection program in Wisconsin. Reflections of the state managers about their early mitigation efforts show how varied these programs were at the outset and how they continued to influence the development of more complex programs over time.
Two of the most highly developed pre-NFP programs were in California and Oregon. California began with education, and over time expanded to include the wide range of approaches seen in many states today — home-owner assistance, demonstration projects, risk assessments, regulations, fire plans and Firewise communities. The state's initial defensible space regulations went into effect in 1965. In 1995, the California Fire Plan, similar to the more recent Community Wildfire Protection Plans, or CWPPs, involved communities in risk-reduction planning and was judged as very effective. The California manager said, "Over the years, we have been doing better, partly because we have been doing the same thing for 40 years." Oregon described its first program as "exceptional; it involves individual homeowners, establishes county-by-county classification committees and requires homeowners to certify their houses." Oregon passed the Oregon Forestland-Urban Interface Fire Protection Act of 1997 after citizens and emergency service managers went to the legislature asking them to pass an interface law.
Acceptable Use Policy blog comments powered by Disqus
