Human Geography Assignment

Forestashazardforestasvictim-CommunityperspectivesanddisastermitigationintheaftermathofKelownas2003wildfiresGoemansBallamingie2012.pdf

Home >Geography homework help >Human Geography Assignment

GEOG 1191: Introduction to Human Geography 1: People and the Environment

Forest as hazard, forest as victim: Community perspectives and disaster mitigation in the aftermath of Kelowna’s 2003

wildfires

Goemans, M. & Ballamingi, P.

Goemans, M. & Ballamingie, P. (2012). Forest as hazard, forest as victim: Community

perspectives and disaster mitigation in the aftermath of Kelowna's 2003 wildfires. The Canadian

Geographer, 57(1) (pp. 56-71). DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012. 00447.x

The Canadian Geographer Le Géographe canadien The Canadian Geographer Le Géographe canadien

Forest as hazard, forest as victim: Community perspectives and disaster mitigation in the aftermath of Kelowna’s 2003 wildfires

Magdalene Goemans Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University

Patricia Ballamingie Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University

Situated within the political ecology of hazard, this article is an extended case study of the devastating 2003 wildfires in and around Kelowna, British Columbia (also known as the Okanagan Mountain Park Fire). This article reveals how compliance (or lack thereof) with fire mitigation strategies recommended by provincial, regional, and municipal agencies is complicated by differing social constructions of what constitutes ecologically sustainable forest management and community safety. Three perspectives emerge regarding the urban forests: “nature as hazard”—a volatile force to be controlled; “nature as instrumentally valuable”—a contribution to the character of one’s surroundings and subsequent sense of place; and “nature as intrinsically valuable”—a distinct entity to be preserved and protected for its own sake. The article also examines how experiences of disaster influence community perceptions and result in a greater willingness to engage in fire mitigation strategies due to perceptions of heightened vulnerability. Forestry and fire mitigation agencies need to determine multiple courses of action among the varied and valid range of residents’ nature perspectives. The role of human agency in disaster mitigation must be examined, particularly as the risk of fire at the wildland-urban interface continues to be exacerbated by encroaching human settlements and climate change.

Keywords: community, hazard, political ecology, social nature

La forêt vue comme un risque ou une victime : les perspectives communautaires et l’atténuation des catastrophes au lendemain des feux de friches de 2003 à Kelowna

S’inscrivant dans le courant de l’écologie politique du risque, cet article a pour objet une étude de cas élargie portant sur les feux de friches de 2003 qui ont complètement détruit la région de Kelowna, Colombie-Britannique (aussi appelé le feu de forêt du Parc du Mont Okanagan). L’article met en évidence que la difficulté à se conformer aux stratégies d’atténuation des incendies proposées par tous les paliers gouvernementaux (provincial, régional et local) résulte du fait qu’il existe de nombreuses constructions sociales des pratiques de gestion forestière écologiquement viable et de la sécurité communautaire. Il se dégage trois conceptions des forêts urbaines : «la nature comme risque», une force imprévisible qu’il faut mâıtriser ; «la nature comme valeur instrumentale», un apport aux particularités du milieu et ainsi à l’esprit du lieu ; et «la nature comme valeur intrinsèque», une entité distincte à conserver et à protéger en soi et pour elle-même. Il est question également de la façon dont les expériences vécues d’un désastre peuvent d’une part exercer une influence sur les perceptions des communautés, et d’autre part se traduire par une plus grande volonté de s’engager dans les stratégies d’atténuation des incendies en raison de la perception d’un sentiment de vulnérabilité plus élevée. Les instances responsables de l’exploitation des forêts et de l’atténuation des incendies ont l’obligation de définir toute une série d’actions parmi les conceptions nombreuses et valables que les

Correspondence to/Adresse de correspondence: Patricia Ballamingie, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6. Email/Courriel: Patricia [email protected]

The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 00(0): 1–16

DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00447.x C© Canadian Association of Geographers / L’Association canadienne des géographes

2 Magdalene Goemans and Patricia Ballamingie

résidents possèdent sur la nature. La part de l’intervention humaine dans l’atténuation des désastres doit être abordée, compte tenu du fait que le risque qu’un incendie se déclare au point de contact entre les milieux sauvage et urbain s’aggrave en raison de l’extension des périmètres urbanisés et des changements climatiques.

Mots clés : communauté, risque, écologie politique, nature sociale

Introduction

Large-scale disaster events such as the wildfires in Slave Lake, Alberta in 2011 and Los Ange- les, California in 2008, and Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005 have accelerated an interest within hazards research in the social contributions to disaster vulnerability in North America. The scale of destruction to human lives and property resulting from natural events often stems from how settlements have been located and patterned, which can be attributed to a va- riety of social, political, economic, and ecological factors (El-Masri and Tipple 2002; Findlay 2002; Wisner et al. 2004; Etkin and Stefanovic 2005; Wisner and Walker 2005; La Point 2007).

Research on flooding and hurricane events has exposed the precarious nature of technocratic measures in reducing risk to lives and property (White 1945; Burton et al. 1993; Cigler 1996; Burby 1998). As a result of large-scale infrastruc- tural failures that have often increased the vul- nerability of communities to natural hazards (as demonstrated most dramatically in recent years in the failure of the levee system in New Or- leans during Hurricane Katrina), researchers have explored the role of preserving natural features such as wetlands in order to reduce the effects of flooding within urban settings (La Point 2007). In these cases, disaster mitigation policy and eco- logically sustainable planning facilitate progress towards the same, or at least complementary, goals: greater resilience to environmental change and concurrent progress towards ecological sus- tainability.

In the case of forest fires, forestry experts are increasingly exposing the drawbacks of previous forest fire management policies that relied on the almost complete suppression of wildfires as part of a strategy to protect residents within the wildland-urban interface (WUI). Forestry profes- sionals now promote an understanding of the important role played by fire in forest ecosystem function. They also assert that the restriction of

natural cycles of burning that were once a part of forest ecosystems increases the risk of much larger wildfires that are more difficult to control within denser wooded areas, potentially threat- ening neighbouring communities (Weaver 1943; Martin et al. 1988; Keane et al. 1990; Arno and Allison-Bunnell 2002, 119–136; Pollet and Omi 2002; Hirsch 2005; NRCan 2007; Pyne 2007, 467– 478).

The elevated risk of forest fires predicted as a result of climate change, in combination with increased levels of development, presents numer- ous challenges for sustainable community plan- ning in forested environments across Canada (Dellasala et al. 2004; Reinhardt et al. 2008). The threat of fire is an additional dimension to community planning in forested areas that re- quires, in some cases, that trade-offs be made between preserving vegetation and providing in- creased safety from the potential threat of future fires. Due in part to the significant proportion of Canadian urban forest1 that exists on privately held land, forest fire mitigation practitioners of- ten advocate a holistic approach to urban for- est management and fire mitigation that requires the active support and participation of all com- munity members (Winter and Fried 2000; Kenney 2003; Hirsch 2005; Shindler 2007).

This article is an extended case study of the devastating wildfires that impacted the munic- ipality of Kelowna, British Columbia in August 2003—part of a larger, anomalous event, coined Firestorm 2003, in which abnormally hot, dry weather sparked over 2500 wildfires in the in- terior of the province (Filmon 2004a). During the post-disaster reconstruction period, sev- eral recommendations were made by provin- cial, regional, and municipal agencies to revise fire mitigation strategies. While some of these

1The Canadian Urban Forest Network (2010, 2–3) defines the urban forest as: “trees, forest, greenspace and related abiotic, biotic and cultural components in and around cities and com- munities. It includes trees, forest cover and related compo- nents in the surrounding rural areas (peri-urban forests).”

The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 00(0): 1–16

Forest as hazard, forest as victim: Community perspectives 3

recommendations addressed changes to mod- ify risk exposure (e.g., through perimeter roads and agricultural buffers [such as Kelowna’s vine- yards and orchards] or through changes to building codes to reduce the combustibility of structures), others, which this article focuses on, propose policy recommendations to modify the hazard: local forests. If adopted, these would re- quire community members to implement and/or support land use practices that alter local for- est ecosystems in order to reduce risk to their city from wildfire. Drawing on primary quali- tative data, including semi-structured interviews and site visits, this article uncovers the ways in which the implementation of particular dis- aster mitigation recommendations is potentially complicated by differing interpretations of for- est values among community members. More specifically, this article addresses the following questions: First, in the aftermath of the devas- tating effects of the 2003 Okanagan Mountain Park Fire, how are residents’ perceptions of na- ture (in this case, urban forests) within the com- munity influenced by disaster? And second, how is acceptance or rejection of forest fire mitigation recommendations in Kelowna influenced by the varied meanings and priorities placed on ecologi- cally sustainable forest management and commu- nity safety by residents within the community?

The City of Kelowna, British Columbia and the Okanagan Mountain Park Fire

The City of Kelowna is located in the southeast interior of British Columbia. With 113 000 resi- dents, Kelowna is an area of significant popula- tion growth, having expanded by 72 percent in the 20 years between 1986 and 2006 (Simmons and McCann 2006; City of Kelowna 2008; City of Kelowna 2009). Due in large part to its scenic lo- cation among provincial parks and sites of natu- ral interest in the Okanagan Valley, as well as its moderate, semi-arid climate, Kelowna is a popu- lar tourist and retirement destination. The city actively markets itself as an ideal location to enjoy outdoor activities such as hiking, moun- tain biking, and skiing within a forested setting (Aguiar et al. 2005).

The Okanagan Mountain Park Fire began on the night of August 16, 2003, ignited by a light- ning strike during a period of prolonged hot and

dry weather conditions. Spurred by strong winds and dry forest vegetation, the blaze eventually grew into a Rank 6 crown fire, which, accord- ing to the British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range (BCMFR) Fire Intensity Rank System, is the most damaging of this type of disturbance (BCMFR Wildfire Management Branch 2011). The fire moved across the whole area of Okanagan Mountain Park (approximately 13 000 hectares) within a period of four days. Over the course of the fire, 33 000 residents in and around Kelowna were evacuated, and 238 homes were signifi- cantly damaged or completely destroyed. By the time the fire was mostly contained in September 2003, almost 26 000 hectares of forested land surrounding Kelowna had burned and over $200 million in damages had been incurred (Freake and Plant 2004; B. A. Blackwell & Associates Ltd. 2006; BCMFR Wildfire Management Branch 2008). The homes most vulnerable to the fire were located in the city sectors of North Mission- Crawford and Southwest Mission, two areas com- prised of high value residential properties that had steadily encroached into the forested periph- ery of the city. In the five years prior to 2003, residential properties in these neighbourhoods represented an average of approximately 15 per- cent of Kelowna’s new home construction, and median residential resale prices were up to 50 percent higher in these areas as compared to the median resale value for the wider Kelowna area (CMHC 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003; Stephen 2011).

The evolving science, politics, and policies of forest and forest fire management

There is relatively limited documented informa- tion about the fire disturbance history of the southern interior region of British Columbia. It is often suggested that, prior to large-scale settlement, five- to twenty-year cycles of low- intensity forest fires cleared excess brush while for the most part preserving older and larger- growth trees (Filmon 2004a; Freake and Plant 2004; Heyerdahl et al. 2007). Others have pro- posed that the area historically experienced more of a mixed-severity regime, in which both recurrent, low-intensity, and less frequent “stand- replacing” fires were known to occur (B. A. Black- well & Associates 2007; Klenner et al. 2008). The

The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 00(0): 1–16

4 Magdalene Goemans and Patricia Ballamingie

Figure 1 Top left: Map of Kelowna within British Columbia. Bottom left: Map of Kelowna within the Okanagan region, British Columbia, depicting the number of forest fires burning in the region on August 20, 2003. Fire icons indicate the approximate location (not size) of fires. Top right: Map of Kelowna depicting the intrusion of the 2003 fire on city sectors containing higher value properties at the forested southern edge of the city.

prevailing view is that currently, as the result of years of fire suppression policies, the species makeup of British Columbia’s forests has been significantly altered and the understory vegeta- tion that would have otherwise been removed has remained and increased in density over time.

As a result, forest fires have the potential to advance upward from lower levels of thick for- est brush to the taller treetops (i.e., crowns) overhead; this is a process that then leads to more intense and damaging crown fires, simi- lar to what occurred during the 2003 Okanagan

The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 00(0): 1–16

Forest as hazard, forest as victim: Community perspectives 5

Mountain Park Fire (BCMFR Wildfire Management Branch 2004; NRCan 2007; Reinhardt et al. 2008). The current mountain pine beetle infestation also complicates fire management within British Columbia forests, as fires have the potential to ignite and spread more quickly among regions of dead forests within 15 years of an infestation (NRCan 2005; B. A. Blackwell & Associates 2007).

Varying perspectives have existed regarding the benefits and risks of forest fires since early North American settlement. During the early 1900s in Canada, support for more assertive ap- proaches to forest fire suppression came from forested communities that suffered damage as a result of large-scale wildfires, as well as from the forest industry due to concerns about the potential loss of forest resources from fire (Fil- mon 2004a; Hirsch 2005; NRCan 2005). However, the last quarter of the twentieth century brought an increasing awareness of the prohibitive eco- nomic costs and risks of continued suppression, and the advancement of forest ecology since the late 1970s also promoted increased awareness of the potential benefits of fire disturbance for the healthy function of forest ecosystems (Hirsch 2005; NRCan 2005).

Today, forest fires continue to be suppressed in the vast majority of Canadian forests (Hirsch 2005) for several reasons: to protect neigh- bouring communities from fire damage and ex- cess smoke, to protect timber resources, and to reduce potentially significant carbon emissions (that could contribute to climate change) that would be generated during large scale fire events (Hirsch 2005; NRCan 2005). However, several op- tions now exist for forest fire mitigation in WUI areas with the primary purpose of removing ex- cess vegetation, many of which “are the sub- jects of much debate” (Brown et al. 2004, 903). Specific mitigation strategies include: prescribed burns, set by forestry officials under strictly con- trolled conditions; mechanical tree removal; and the replacement of flammable vegetation such as conifers with less flammable species such as deciduous trees or shrubs (Brown et al. 2004; Kauffman 2004).

There is a diversity of social, economic, and ecological concerns to be addressed as part of forest management and fire mitigation across North America’s forested areas. The many stake- holders involved include forest practitioners,

representatives from various levels of govern- ment, community, and environmental groups, as well as other members of the general public. These stakeholders often hold differing opinions about how efforts towards environmental protec- tion and community safety can and should be achieved.

The political ecology of hazard: Social vulnerability to natural disturbance

A mid-twentieth century analysis of approaches to flood mitigation by White and his colleagues within the Chicago School of natural hazards research marked a substantial movement away from the common reliance on imperfect struc- tural approaches to subduing natural forces (e.g., through dams and levees), which had the addi- tional unintended drawback of promoting settle- ment in areas prone to hazard. These researchers focused on behavioural analysis and the assump- tion that individuals and institutions could, for the most part, mediate their own exposure to risk by choosing from a selection of “adjust- ments,” which included disaster insurance and restrictions over land use and building construc- tion. Choices made by communities and individ- uals regarding settlement in volatile areas were assumed to be the result of trade-offs made be- tween the economic benefits or emotional ap- peal of an area and its disaster potential (White 1945; Kates 1962, 2007; Hewitt 1971; Burton et al. 1993).

Over the last few decades, other scholars have refined the concept of disaster vulnerability, es- pecially as it relates to disadvantaged popula- tions in the developing world (Hewitt 1980, 1983; Watts 1983; Blaikie and Brookfield 1987; Pelling 2001; Wisner et al. 2004). Moving away from analyses centred on individual choice or the management of ecological extremes, their study of disaster has involved a more subtle inves- tigation into the social, economic, and political forces that have influenced differential exposure to natural events.

Among these differing approaches to disaster theory, the common assumption has been that, in general, more prosperous North American populations are better able to reduce the degree of vulnerability to natural disturbance to which they are exposed (Cronon 1996; Davis 1999;

The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 00(0): 1–16

6 Magdalene Goemans and Patricia Ballamingie

Wisner et al. 2004). Though this assumption has been challenged by some scholars (Cigler 1996; Masozera et al. 2007; Collins 2008), it is often accepted that exposure to disaster among resi- dents of many urban regions of North America results from a common desire to live embedded within environments that may experience peri- ods of volatility. In many forested communities, for example, populations have expanded greatly due to the appeal of living within scenic loca- tions; these areas often have accordingly higher property values due to their pleasing visual at- tributes, yet have considerably more exposure to the potential risk of property damage from for- est fires (Cortner et al. 1990; Winter and Fried 2000; Dombeck et al. 2004). At the same time, technocratic engineering strategies continue to facilitate development in areas known for their potential instability, while entrenching a perspec- tive of societal dominance over nature (Cigler 1996; Pelling 2001; Arno and Allison-Bunnel 2002, 11–26; Etkin and Stefanovic 2005; Hirsch 2005; NRCan 2005).

Social nature/social constructions of nature

The “social nature” concept acknowledges soci- ety’s inevitable influence on and interrelation- ship with other elements of the natural world (i.e., ecosystems in which we are embedded, and non-human populations), in contrast to the “nature-culture dualism” that is often perpetu- ated in modern Western society (Castree and Braun 1998; Castree 2001; Braun 2002). Social nature theorists have explored the ways in which differing (and sometimes conflicting) interpreta- tions of ecological events, and the generation of solutions to ecological challenges, can reflect particular political agendas or societal trends (Harvey 1996, 176–204; Braun 2002; Keil 2003). Castree (2005) contends that the natural world cannot be experienced in any form that is free of bias or social construction.

This article adopts a poststructural lens to evaluate how nature is interpreted, valued, and controlled among populations in a modern West- ern context. Within this conceptual framework, the material existence of nature itself is not be- ing denied, however, doubt is cast on sole re- liance on “expert” advice or absolute definitions of what nature is or how ecological concerns

should be addressed; instead, there remain many possible means through which societies may in- teract with and attempt to preserve non-human environments (Escobar 1996; Castree and Braun 1998; Demeritt 1998; Castree 2005). To this end, our article draws on literature that demonstrates several ways in which nature is interpreted in a contemporary North American urban context: as volatile—a dynamic but unpredictable force to be controlled; as instrumentally valuable—a con- tribution to the aesthetic character of one’s sur- roundings and subsequent sense of place; and as intrinsically valuable—a distinct entity to be pre- served and protected for its own sake.

The “nature as hazard” perspective: Haz- ard literature often stresses the negative im- pacts of natural forces without examining the societal conditions that influence disaster vulner- ability (Tobin and Montz 1997; Bryant 2005). Dis- aster mitigation strategies that have emphasized control over nature have exacerbated residents’ somewhat fearful attitudes towards their sur- rounding natural areas (Cigler 1996; Burby 1998) and influenced reactions to particular fire miti- gation methods. For example, the relatively re- cent shift in North American forest management policy from complete fire suppression to the implementation of controlled burns in order to emulate natural disturbance has faced significant resistance from some WUI residents who perceive a prescribed burn to be a potentially uncontrol- lable approach (Winter and Fried 2000; Shindler 2007).

The “nature as instrumentally valuable” per- spective: Nature is often valued according to how it may benefit a society, for example by sat- isfying an aesthetic preference or providing an economic asset. An aesthetic appreciation of na- ture in urban environments is frequently linked to residents’ sense of place and cultural or indi- vidual identity (Hull IV et al. 1994; Swart et al. 2001; Etkin and Stefanovic 2005). Rapid and extensive urban development into forested ar- eas can be the largest factor complicating eco- logically sustainable practices of fire mitigation (Dombeck et al. 2004; Collins 2008). As well, emotional ties to particular landscapes have con- tributed in part to conflicts surrounding how ur- ban ecologies should be restored (Helford 2000).

The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 00(0): 1–16

Forest as hazard, forest as victim: Community perspectives 7

The perceived commodity potential of so-called “natural” environments is frequently centred on the promotion of tourism opportunities or a gen- eral increase in property values (Keil and Graham 1998; Wolch 2007). Residents may prioritize per- ceived private property rights over community disaster mitigation efforts or the conservation of urban ecologies (Cigler 1996; Winter and Fried 2000; Daniel et al. 2003; Collins 2005; Etkin and Stefanovic 2005; McGee 2005; La Point 2007; Collins 2008).

The “nature as intrinsically valuable” perspec- tive: In this perspective, nature’s worth is mea- sured beyond its benefit to society; there is a moral responsibility to gear individual actions towards the protection of vulnerable wilder- ness areas (Taylor 1986; Lynn 1998). Wilder- ness is not perceived as a pristine entity, but is simply allowed to thrive with minimal human intervention or interruption (Foreman 2008). Des- for and Keil (2004) and Wolch (2007) explore value systems among civic activists that are predicated on the concept of “eco-citizenship,” a fundamental relationship with and respect for nature that motivates actions towards environ- mental stewardship, in their analysis of river restoration projects in North American urban ar- eas. In the case of urban forested areas, con- flicts have sometimes arisen between disaster mitigation agencies and residents who priori- tize the intrinsic value of forests (Nelson et al. 2005; Prather et al. 2008). The opposition to the 2002 Healthy Forest Initiative (US Of- fice of the President 2002) in the United States demonstrated how environmentalists have linked aggressive tree thinning recommendations to log- ging strategies motivated primarily by commer- cial actors (Dellasala et al. 2004; Dombeck et al. 2004; Kauffman 2004; Reinhardt et al. 2008).

Methodology: A poststructural approach to discourse analysis

This study employs qualitative methods inspired by Castree’s (2005, 27) attempts “. . .to reveal the ‘symptomatic silences’ that lie within any given claim about what nature is, how it works, what it does and how it should be treated.” Social con- structions of nature as expressed by residents in

and around Kelowna are explored through the methodology of Foucauldian discourse analysis. Discourse is described as “. . .a particular knowl- edge about the world which shapes how the world is understood and how things are done in it” (Rose 2001, 136). This analytical approach ac- knowledges the existence of multiple, sometimes competing discourses, originating from such fac- tors as “. . .claims to truth, or to scientific cer- tainty, or to the natural way of things” (Rose 2001, 154). The most powerful discourses be- come established as “normal” or “common-sense” (Waitt 2005, 165); however, several discourses surrounding an issue can co-exist and often com- pete, in a variety of forms that may all have some claim to validity (Hajer 2006). Discourses are not fixed in position, but instead respond to changing social influences (Shurmer-Smith 2002).

This article aims to uncover the discourses through which Kelowna residents place meaning on urban forests and forest fires, as well as the ways in which individuals make choices based upon these social constructions of nature. It em- ploys a discursive analysis of public documents pertaining to the fire and its aftermath (including media accounts, transcripts from public meet- ings that formed the initial part of the Firestorm 2003 Provincial Review, resident surveys, and press releases). This analysis involved identifying subtle and repeated themes within a particular discourse, as well as the societal influences on their production. Identified themes became the starting point for a deeper and more detailed study of perspectives within the material as part of an iterative process between the sources and the researcher’s insights (Crang 1997).2

This rich body of primary data was then sup- plemented with semi-structured, in-depth inter- views conducted in September 2008 with 11

2These more intensive methods of analysis of residents’ views were employed not with the purpose of applying findings across a wider population, but with the intent of providing a greater comprehension of selected “. . .rationalities, implica- tions and meanings” (Hoggart et al. 2002, 204). Through an examination of each among the variety of perspectives that ex- isted across this group, it became possible to understand some of the links that exist between nature perspectives and the ac- tions taken or concerns voiced by residents that live within this forested environment. Interviews provided the opportu- nity for “. . .in-depth understanding that is best communicated through detailed examples and rich narratives” (Hoggart et al. 2002, 205).

The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 00(0): 1–16

8 Magdalene Goemans and Patricia Ballamingie

community residents (a roughly equal number of women and men, ranging in age from their early twenties to just over sixty-five, all living in middle- or upper-income neighbourhoods, none of whom had lost their homes in the fire, but all of whom experienced the 2003 fire) and 3 directly relevant government officials from mu- nicipal, regional, and provincial bodies. These approximately 1.5 hour interviews, which docu- mented the reactions of community members to forest fire mitigation and urban forest manage- ment in and around Kelowna, as well as personal connections to urban forests, were analyzed in order to explore the ways in which residents’ personal interpretations of urban nature connect to larger discursive themes of sustainability and hazard. For example, forest fire can be inter- preted within a range of views—as an extremely damaging force to lives and property, as a vital factor in maintaining ecosystem health, or pos- sibly both—depending on the worldview through which fires are understood and the subject posi- tion of the interviewee.

These more intensive methods of analysis of residents’ views were employed not with the pur- pose of applying findings across a wider popula- tion, but with the intent of providing a greater comprehension of selected “rationalities, implica- tions and meanings” (Hoggart et al. 2002, 204). This article seeks to examine a variety of per- spectives revealed during interviews and in the relevant literature, in order to better understand some of the links that exist between nature perspectives and the actions taken or concerns voiced by residents who live within this forested environment.

Contesting forest management and community safety

The “forest as hazard” perspective

Support for the removal of hazardous forested areas was often based on residents’ fears for community safety that were associated with their experiences with the 2003 fire. Residents fre- quently and vividly described the immediacy of sights, sounds, and smells associated with the fire (WR3; WH; Freake and Plant 2004): “Driving

3References appearing in this form refer to testimony gener- ated by interviewees during the research process. Individual

fifteen kilometres out of town on the Okanagan Connector, you could see black smoke in the dis- tance. It was a beautiful sunny day until then. You descend into it, and you can’t see 200 feet in front. It was choking” (Sindi Hawkins cited in Freake and Plant 2004, 187). Efforts to stop advancing flames from reaching developed areas of the city were frequently compared by resi- dents to fighting a battle in war (HW; Mervyn An- drews cited in Freake and Plant 2004, 174; Kevin Brownlee cited in Freake and Plant 2004, 179). Many recalled the panic and disorientation that resulted from the suddenness with which they were required to evacuate their homes: “Flames were jumping down the hill. I felt like it was chasing us. I started to panic because there was a long line-up leaving the subdivision. . . As we crawled down Casorso Road, I felt trapped. If the traffic took too long, I’d park the car and run” (Naomi Winn cited in Freake and Plant 2004, 217).

Exposure to this disturbance provoked sig- nificant emotional reactions in some residents, including periods of helplessness, grief, and depression. By removing residents from their homes, whether temporarily or permanently, the fire had removed a primary place of security and memories (Harrington 2003; Kennedy 2003; Sindi Hawkins cited in Freake and Plant 2004, 187); the loss of this security was frequently compared to mourning the loss of a loved one (Freake and Plant 2004, 195). One nearby resident with dra- matic and expansive views of Okanagan Moun- tain Park recounted how she watched the fire each day from her backyard, at times videotap- ing homes as they burned: “The night that. . . the many homes that were lost, I knew they were burning because the fireballs would just come out of the home and [pause] you know we knew people were evacuated but [pause] there’s ani- mals there and. . . lives lost. They weren’t people, but they were animals” (WR).

Several residents who were interviewed ex- pressed support for sacrificing some vegetation on their own properties to increase fire safety in their neighbourhoods (PI; SS; VR). Anecdotal ev- idence in the form of greater volumes of yard waste in the year immediately following the 2003

identities have been obscured through the random allocation of anonymous initials.

The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 00(0): 1–16

Forest as hazard, forest as victim: Community perspectives 9

fire also suggests that many Kelowna residents in general were in support of the removal of excess vegetation from their properties to reduce future fire risk (Blanleil 2008; Wilson 2008).

Many residents now perceive area forests as volatile places that require increased manage- ment and control. Some residents stated that they became much more aware of the degree of risk involved with living near forested areas (Kevin and Alisa Brownlee cited in NRCan 2004). One interviewee voiced his concern about the risks of large-scale and sprawling development within the forested outskirts of the city, with homes in close proximity to treed areas (CK). An- other Kelowna resident who had previously been against the removal of trees for the construction of infrastructure projects was now in support of this measure as part of making the community safer: “No houses were lost in our neighbour- hood. The Gordon Drive road extension stopped the flames because there was no fuel. The exten- sion wasn’t supposed to go in for five years and we were so mad when it went in. We don’t bitch about the road anymore” (Kim Watt-Senner cited in Freake and Plant 2004, 186).

Several interviewees expressed support for me- chanical tree thinning programs in effect since the 2003 fire for municipal parks and other forested public spaces (DK; PI; ST; TG; WR) and these programs have also received positive feed- back from the general public (Blanleil 2008; Wil- son 2008):

Before 2003, I would say that there was general support for what we were doing, but they were concerned about us not being too aggressive in terms of thinning or reducing forest fuels. After the fire, the pendulum swung the other way, and we were getting calls. People almost wanted to have clear-cutting around their houses. They were very afraid of the fire hazard, and any kind of trees. (Wilson 2008)

However, more intense perceptions of fire risk among residents also resulted in the rejection of particular disaster mitigation methods such as prescribed burning. In the years following the 2003 fire, the City of Kelowna did not im- plement controlled burns in city parks due in part to negative resident feedback regarding con- cerns about the health effects of smoke and the “real fear of fire in some of these urbanized

areas where houses and people are very, very close by” (Wilson 2008). Enduring concerns have also been voiced among Kelowna’s senior citizen population about the potential for smoke to be generated during controlled burning projects in provincial parks (Ladd 2008). Among interview participants, some voiced either cautious support for controlled burns or rejected the strategy en- tirely, citing either scepticism about their effec- tiveness, or concerns that controlled burns could potentially grow out of control (TR; DK).

For many Kelowna residents, the 2003 fire was experienced as an unusual and unnatural event, the result of inadequate suppression mea- sures by provincial forestry officials. This per- spective is potentially influenced by modernist views that were actively promoted by Canadian forestry agencies over most of the last century, in which the forest fire itself was the primary factor in disaster impacts and a destructive force to be arrested, without consideration or under- standing of the risks involved with vulnerable patterns of settlement in WUI communities.

The “forest as instrumentally valuable” perspective

Residents who recognized the instrumental value of forests in and around Kelowna often viewed the preservation of forests, in particular the aes- thetic appeal of expansive views of surround- ing forested landscapes, as an important part of maintaining the character of the community (CK; SS; TG; WR). For some residents, the city’s natural surroundings form part of their per- sonal identities: easy access to nature for out- door recreational activities was a major factor in drawing some interviewees to the city, as well as in encouraging permanent settlement in the area (DK; PI; RC; WH). For others, the forest environ- ment provides a play space for children, mak- ing the area a desirable place to raise a family (ST; TG). One interviewee recounted the experi- ences of her children within Okanagan Mountain Park prior to the burn: “They would go off and play, and they would take a shovel (laughs) and I wouldn’t see them, and then they’d come back out of the forest when it was getting dark. . . It was very nice. I’m so glad to have had it while it lasted” (ST).

Clearly, the Okanagan Mountain Park Fire al- tered the way in which some Kelowna residents

The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 00(0): 1–16

10 Magdalene Goemans and Patricia Ballamingie

experience their surrounding landscape. The changes in appearance that resulted from the fire were difficult to accept for many residents, who in part were still grieving the loss of such a large number of trees. The forest had become a dam- aged, unfamiliar, and somewhat frightening place (DK; RC; ST; VR): “It looked like white with black sticks. I’ve never seen a forest fire before, so I was surprised how many trees still stood. And the forest was so full of trees that it was just black, and the ash was white, so that’s what it looked like for a while. It was weird” (ST).

In general, residents who value the instru- mental aspects of forests appeared willing to accept some degree of fire risk in order to maintain the natural surroundings on private properties according to visual priorities such as ensuring privacy or accessibility to views. Elements of their immediate landscape were at times valued over residents’ own homes. Kelowna’s Fire Chief noted that while many in the community have supported local fire miti- gation efforts, “[the fire department does] meet with some resistance. They don’t outright say they don’t want to do it, they just simply give us ‘this is my property, and I’ll treat it how I like,’ if you will” (Blanleil 2008). A significant minor- ity of residents who took part in a community survey conducted after the fire also expressed some reluctance to alter landscaping on their own properties due to the character provided by existing vegetation; also, when asked about de- velopment practices within the city’s forested ar- eas, the majority stated they were against the complete removal of vegetation within new res- idential developments, preferring “the sensitive integration of housing into the landscape at the expense of some security from wildland fire” (B. A. Blackwell & Associates 2006, 19). Resistance to forest thinning in municipally-owned forested areas has increased in the years since the fire, in particular among residents whose homes border city parks (Wilson 2008): “Some people are very against. . .[the] loss of privacy, to the point where even after we explain what we’re doing and why it needs to be done, that they’re basically like ‘Well, I don’t care if my house burns down, that’s what insurance is for’ . . ..”

Residents who hold this perspective often re- sist disaster mitigation policies that do not corre- spond with familiar perceptions of local forested

areas. Concerns have been raised among a num- ber of Kelowna residents that the aesthetic and recreational qualities of surrounding crown lands and provincial parks could be negatively affected by forest fuel modification projects. Some resi- dents have voiced a preference for new trees to be planted in places within the park that were burned to replace the native grasslands that have grown in these areas following the fire. Others have voiced concerns that these changes in land- scape alter what they consider to be the con- ventional attributes of area campgrounds (Ladd; NRCan 2004).

Braun (2002, 11) suggests that, in contempo- rary North American culture, “nature is increas- ingly remade in the image of the commodity,” while Wolch (2007) observes that a predominant purpose for the preservation of urban nature is often its influence on property values and tourism. Kelowna residents live in a community in which economic prosperity (in particular, the large proportion of employment in the service in- dustry) is closely linked to the area’s forested en- vironment, and surrounding landscapes are often shaped to suit the requirements of upper-income residents and visitors.

Some of the Kelowna residents who were inter- viewed tended at times to be less focused on the potential for future forest fires to affect the com- munity, prioritizing instead, as Castree (2005, 21) describes, their “emotional attachments to par- ticular landscapes.” As a result, some residents appear to have grown increasingly complacent about disaster risk in the years since the fire.

The “forest as intrinsically valuable” perspective

For some Kelowna residents, the most painful losses experienced after the 2003 fire were those of neighbourhood trees and the associated dam- age to wildlife habitats (Freake and Plant 2004, Plant 2008). However, residents also acknowl- edged fire as an inevitable and natural event, a source of regeneration for the forest and an op- portunity for new growth (Vancouver Sun 2003). Despite some initial fear and hesitancy to re- enter the provincial parks in the months imme- diately following the fire, some of the residents who were interviewed recalled witnessing what they described as the beauty of regrowth result- ing from natural disturbance:

The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 00(0): 1–16

Forest as hazard, forest as victim: Community perspectives 11

After it [the fire] first went through, we said, “oh, I don’t know if we want to go back out there.” So we started taking in little doses. . . Then we started to notice that little leaves and branches were start- ing to come in the fall. That quickly. It was amaz- ing. And sometimes the ash would actually be six inches deep in some of those places. And you’d think, well nothing is ever going to grow in there, but you’d see little shoots coming up. . . And it’s lovely. Again, it had a fully different beauty than it had before. (PI)

No doubt this focus on the regenerative aspects of disturbance has been influenced in part by increased ecological awareness within contempo- rary society in general, as well as the growing acknowledgement among Canadian forestry agen- cies of the negative ecological effects of complete fire suppression.

Residents who prioritized forest ecosystem health demonstrated greater acceptance of the potential for risk to personal properties from forest fires. Some interviewees voiced opposition to what they considered to be excessive tree thinning: concerns noted in this respect included the potential depletion of soil nutrients or loss of wildlife habitat on forested properties (RC; WH). Residents who stressed the intrinsic value of forest ecosystems frequently expressed pre- conceptions of how they thought nature should exist (for example, as untouched “wilderness”), though sometimes associating what was “natural” with what had been affected by human activity for some time. Many interviewees who expressed support for mechanical tree thinning in munici- pal parks linked this type of approach with the protection of more established trees from future large-scale fires (CK; HW; TR). However, Ian Wil- son, then Kelowna’s Urban Forestry Supervisor, described how other residents have expressed resistance based on their visual assessments of what constitutes the “natural” state of the for- est: “people want those areas to be left alone. But the challenge of course, in an urban area like this, where people consider it to be natural, it really isn’t. . .. so we’re now in a situation where we have to go in and physically do some of the treatments that Mother Nature would have taken care of by herself” (Wilson 2008). Residents of- ten expressed concern about the motivations for (and methods through which) fuel reduction ef-

forts were implemented. Regarding regional park forests, one interviewee asserted that prescribed burning was a more beneficial approach for local forest wildlife species over mechanical thinning (WH).

Regarding surrounding provincial parks, com- munity members offered conflicting views about how best to preserve forest ecosystems; some local naturalist groups supported the Class A designation in these parks that restricts forest alteration, in particular with regard to commer- cial logging, mining, and hydro-electric develop- ment (John Woodworth cited in Filmon 2004b, 21–26; BC Parks 2012), and some residents simi- larly resisted selective tree harvesting as linked to commercial logging strategies (Carver 2003; RC; SJ; WH; Ladd 2008). One resident expressed concern that if the methods of tree removal em- ployed by forestry agencies for fire mitigation were followed incorrectly, it could upset the for- est’s natural pattern of regrowth, and potentially have negative effects on the wilderness attributes of these areas, stating “we should try to let [the provincial park] manage itself as nature would have managed it, because if you start manag- ing everything, do we want our parks to look like downtown Kelowna? Or like Kelowna city parks?” (PI). However, mitigation strategies em- phasizing the preservation of trees within these forests have also gained in popularity in the years since the fire, as some residents advocated selective tree harvesting as a measure which pro- vides “. . . short-term pain for long-term gain” (CK) and a more sustainable approach to fire mitigation than clear-cutting (Palmer 2007; Ladd 2008; TR).

Several residents who expressed support for prescribed burning also linked this approach with an ultimate improvement in forest ecosys- tem conditions (SJ; WR); one interviewee de- scribed how the 2003 fire changed her views on the role of burns (natural or prescribed) in main- taining forest health:

What I learned was that at the time in Okanagan Mountain Park, they didn’t do the selective,. . . con- trolled burns, which I see now are a good idea, because there’s three hundred years of pine bark built up and they don’t break down, and leaves, and other things like that, so it’s just dry and waiting to happen. . . And honestly the first time

The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 00(0): 1–16

12 Magdalene Goemans and Patricia Ballamingie

we were driving back up the road, and I was look- ing at the landscape, I said, “It looks like Mother Nature came here with a big broom, and swept all that debris and crap away, and it was clean as a whistle.” (ST)

In general, these residents often perceived forested landscapes as victims of human in- tervention, and, similar to the “eco-citizenship” model described by Desfor and Keil (2004) and Wolch (2007), the care of these forests was fre- quently linked to residents’ personal identities as protectors of wilderness areas.

Conclusion

Of the many wildland-urban interface (WUI) com- munities across Canada, Kelowna is one of the few that has been significantly impacted by a large-scale, damaging wildfire (notwithstanding the devastation wrought by wildfire in May of 2011 in the town of Slave Lake, Alberta). The Okanagan Mountain Park Fire was the largest fire disturbance in British Columbia’s recorded history, and had great physical and emotional impacts on many community residents. This difference between wildfire threat and wildfire experience has had a substantial influence on residents’ perceptions of their natural surround- ings.

Residents presented three general perspectives about Kelowna’s forests: forests as hazardous, forests as instrumentally valuable, and forests as intrinsically valuable—each of which were in- fluenced by residents’ experience with disaster and, in turn, influenced residents’ varied reac- tions to fire mitigation policies in and around the city. Residents who focused on the haz- ardous potential of surrounding forests reported experiencing an even greater sense of vulnera- bility to natural forces following the fire; this heightened awareness of risk was reflected in residents’ increased support for mechanical fuel thinning activities, but also influenced the rejec- tion of controlled burning measures due to con- cerns about the volatile effects of out-of-control burns and smoke. As a result of their expe- rience with the Okanagan Mountain Park Fire, residents who emphasized the aesthetic or eco- nomic benefits of living in a forested environ-

ment frequently expressed a more enlightened perspective on the risks of this pattern of settle- ment, but still resisted mitigation strategies that significantly changed the look or recreational qualities of surrounding landscapes. And among residents who emphasized the intrinsic value of Kelowna area forests, the 2003 fire enhanced their awareness of the ecological value of dis- turbance, but also influenced varied reactions to particular mitigation methods, as some res- idents voiced caution about the potential com- mercial benefits of mechanical thinning and others asserted the ecological benefits of con- trolled burning.

Kelowna residents’ views regarding area forests were often quite complex; individual interview participants sometimes expressed a range of perspectives, depending on various contextual factors. Some residents displayed differing per- spectives of forests (and expressed differing opinions about fire mitigation efforts) depending on the scale at which mitigation measures were employed (e.g., individual properties vs. provin- cial parks), while others had varied reactions based on who would be implementing a par- ticular mitigation strategy (e.g., homeowners vs. government agencies). In addition, individuals’ responses to forest fire mitigation did not nec- essarily reflect the degree of devastation they ex- perienced during the 2003 fire, as some of the residents who lost homes or suffered severe damage as a result of the Okanagan Mountain Park Fire also acknowledged the benefits of fire disturbance in maintaining forest health.

Vulnerability to disaster risk results from a complex mix of political, social, economic, and ecological influences. In contrast to poorer socio- economic classes, who are obviously more con- strained in their choices, there are many ways in which more prosperous socio-economic classes may voluntarily expose themselves to higher dis- aster risk in order to be close to the natu- ral surroundings that they most value. Forest fires will continue to impact WUI communities in the southern interior of British Columbia, re- sulting in part from the increasing expansion of settlements within the dry forested and fire- maintained ecosystems that are a part of this area of the province. This reality was demon- strated most dramatically during large fire events that occurred within areas north and west of

The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 00(0): 1–16

Forest as hazard, forest as victim: Community perspectives 13

Kelowna during the summer of 2009 and across other areas of British Columbia during the sum- mer of 2010.

Community responses presented in this study highlight persistent challenges in educating Kelowna residents about the risks involved with living in a dry, forested environment, while at the same time addressing a perceived futility among some residents regarding individual mit- igation efforts in the face of large-scale fires. The forestry officials who were interviewed for this article displayed a clear commitment to pro- viding effective public education programs. Exist- ing public outreach efforts, which have included community open houses as well as visits to indi- vidual properties to address residents’ concerns, have already garnered positive responses from many residents. Public education programs could further address residents’ multiple perspectives on and priorities for area forests by more fully stressing the potentially recurring nature of for- est fires; by providing increased public outreach prior to the implementation of specific mitiga- tion practices such as controlled burns, to ease concerns and help residents prepare for the ef- fects of the burn (i.e., smoke); and by conduct- ing more frequent and detailed workshops that highlight appropriate mitigation methods to be undertaken by residents on their own properties (to reduce fire risk as well as maintain healthy local forests).

A more nuanced understanding of varied so- cial constructions of urban forests could also help officials to effectively harness other po- tential sources of public support for mitigation efforts. The City of Kelowna’s existing public ed- ucation programs draw on residents’ concerns about the pine beetle threat to motivate sup- port for forest fuels management (Wilson 2008). Tree thinning strategies could be presented in ways that highlight other benefits such as the maintenance of neat and ordered landscaping. Exposing residents through field tours to the aes- thetic appeal of native vegetation (e.g., grass- lands) that returns to park forests following a fire disturbance may help to increase support for prescribed burns (Shindler 2007). And the potential for controlled burns to benefit over- all forest ecosystem health (e.g., through the re- generation of forest soils and the reduction of large stand-replacing fires which could otherwise

devastate wildlife habitats) could also be empha- sized. An examination of forest ecosystems at a broader, landscape scale may reveal that there are many possibilities within the range of fuel thinning options available to address residents’ concerns (Prather et al. 2008); as a result, mul- tiple mitigation strategies could be implemented across this larger landscape in accordance with residents’ nature perspectives as well as the unique features or requirements of each area of forest.

Interviews with Kelowna residents also re- vealed a need for greater communication and trust-building between forest fire mitigation agencies and community residents, as residents voiced fears about the risks of controlled burns and concerns that the implementation of fuel management strategies may be guided mainly by commercial motives. Government agencies have already begun to address issues of trust- building with local residents: provincial park of- ficials have worked with local recreation groups to incorporate community perspectives about fire management and forest restoration in provin- cial parks and are working to make more trans- parent the agency’s practice of directing funds received from the sale of thinned trees solely to- ward future restoration activities in park forests (Ladd 2008). Similarly, open houses also proved successful in generating support for prescribed burns in a local regional park (Kopp 2008). A further invigorated process of adaptive manage- ment may help to foster increased trust between forestry agencies and other community members, to more fully reflect the range of understandings of what constitutes the natural or preferred state of local landscapes (Hull IV et al. 1994). This type of approach would accord similar consider- ation to wildlife species-at-risk (as prioritized by local naturalist groups), as well as to other res- idents’ valued emotional connections to natural landscapes. It would also provide an opportunity for forest management agencies to re-examine their own assumptions and biases about appro- priate disaster mitigation strategies (assumptions that may have been influenced by somewhat con- flicting scientific perspectives). The discussion of these concerns on-site, through field tours of lo- cal forested areas (Shindler 2007), would allow for increased insight into the visible effects of differing forest management strategies.

The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 00(0): 1–16

14 Magdalene Goemans and Patricia Ballamingie

An application of the acknowledgement of multiple perceptions of nature to the develop- ment of disaster mitigation strategies for the community requires that forestry and fire mitiga- tion agencies determine multiple courses of ac- tion among the varied and valid range of resi- dents’ nature perspectives. As Castree (2001, 17) acknowledges, “We must live with this inability to know nature ‘as it really is,’ while still re- maining committed to the idea that some knowl- edges of, and practices on, nature are better or worse than others.” Clearly, WUI residents may be required to accept a degree of compromise as participants in the development of disaster mit- igation strategies that address the diverse needs of the entire community. For the residents of these communities, their participation in the de- velopment of these strategies may allow them to more fully understand the assorted safety, eco- logical, and aesthetic implications of their ac- tions (or inaction) towards the effective mitiga- tion of forest fire hazard.

References

Aguiar, L. L. M., P. Tomic, and R. Trumper. 2005. Work hard, play hard: Selling Kelowna, BC, as year-round playground. The Canadian Geographer 49(2): 123–139.

Arno, S. F., and S. Allison-Bunnell. 2002. Flames in our forest: Disaster or renewal? Washington, DC: Island Press.

B. A. Blackwell & Associates Ltd. 2006. Review of policies, procedures and bylaws relating to wildland fire: Options for wildland urban interface management policy change in the City of Kelowna, British Columbia. North Vancouver: B. A. Blackwell & Associates Ltd. http://www.kelowna.ca/ CityPage/Docs/PDFs/Strategic%20Planning/Review%20of%20 Policies%20Procedures%20and%20Bylaws%20Relating%20to% 20Wildland%20Fire.pdf.

———. 2007. Urban forest health strategy: Strategies for forest health management in the RDCO [Regional District of Cen- tral Okanagan] Parks System. North Vancouver: B. A. Black- well & Associates Ltd. http://www.regionaldistrict.com/ docs/parks/foresthealthstrategy.pdf.

BC Parks. 2012. Summary of park and protected area desig- nations. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/aboutBCParks/ prk desig.html.

BCMFR (British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range), Wildfire Management Branch. 2004. Ministry of Forests Re- port to the 2003 Firestorm Provincial Review. Victoria, BC: BCMFR, Wildfire Management Branch. http://bcwildfire.ca/ history/ReportsandReviews/2003/Protection Submission to Filmon.pdf.

———. 2008. Very large fires. http://bcwildfire.ca/History/Large Fires.htm.

———. 2011. Fire rank. http://bcwildfire.ca/FightingWildfire/ firerank.htm.

Blaikie, P., and H. Brookfield. 1987. Land degradation and so- ciety. London, UK: Methuen & Co. Ltd.

Blanleil, R., Fire Chief, City of Kelowna. 2008. Telephone com- munication with author, December 12.

Braun, B. 2002. The intemperate rainforest: Nature, culture, and power on Canada’s west coast. Minneapolis, MN: Uni- versity of Minnesota Press.

Brown, R. T., J. K. Agee, and J. F. Franklin. 2004. Forest restoration and fire: Principles in the context of place. Con- servation Biology 18(4): 903–912.

Bryant, E. 2005. Natural hazards. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Burby, R. J. 1998. Natural hazards and land use: An intro- duction. In Cooperating with nature: Confronting natural hazards with land-use planning for sustainable communi- ties, ed. R. J. Burby. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 1–26.

Burton, I., R. W. Kates, and G. F. White. 1993. The environ- ment as hazard. 2nd ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Canadian Urban Forest Network. 2010. Canadian Urban Forest Strategy: 2010-2015 (October 2010 Draft). http:// www.tcf-fca.ca/programs/urbanforestry/cufn/resources/ pages/files/OctoberFinal.pdf.

Carver, J. 2003. Seeing the forest for the trees. Nelson Daily News, September 30, 4.

Castree, N. 2001. Socializing nature: Theory, practice, and politics. In Social nature: Theory, practice, and politics, ed. N. Castree and B. Braun. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1–21.

———. 2005. Nature. London, UK: Routledge. Castree, N., and B. Braun. 1998. The construction of nature

and the nature of construction: Analytical and political tools for building survivable futures. In Remaking reality: Nature at the Millennium, ed. N. Castree and B. Braun. Lon- don, UK: Routledge, 3–42.

Cigler, B. A. 1996. Coping with floods: Lessons from the 1990s. In Disaster management in the U.S. and Canada, ed. R. T. Sylves and W. L. Waugh, Jr. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 191–211.

City of Kelowna. 2008. Kelowna Population Statistics. Kelowna: Planning and Development Services Department. http:// www.kelowna.ca/CityPage/Docs/PDFs/Strategic%20Planning/ 2006%20Census%20Summary.pdf.

———. 2009. Population/demographic statistics. http:// www.kelowna.ca/CM/Page130.aspx.

CMHC (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation). 1999. Housing market outlook: Kelowna, Spring 1999. Vancouver, BC: CMHC, BC and Yukon Business Centre.

———. 2000. Housing market outlook: Kelowna, Spring 2000. Vancouver, BC: CMHC, BC and Yukon Business Centre.

———. 2001. Housing market outlook: Kelowna, Spring 2001. Vancouver, BC: CMHC, BC and Yukon Business Centre.

———. 2002. Housing market outlook: Kelowna, Spring 2002. Vancouver, BC: CMHC, BC and Yukon Business Centre.

———. 2003. Housing market outlook: Kelowna, Spring 2003. Vancouver, BC: CMHC, BC and Yukon Business Centre.

Collins, T. W. 2005. Households, forests, and fire hazard vul- nerability in the American West: A case study of a Califor- nia community. Environmental Hazards 6: 23–37.

———. 2008. The political ecology of hazard vulnerability: Marginalization, facilitation and the production of differen- tial risk to urban wildfires in Arizona’s White Mountains. Journal of Political Ecology 15: 21–38.

The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 00(0): 1–16

Forest as hazard, forest as victim: Community perspectives 15

Cortner, H. J., P. D. Gardner, and J. G. Taylor. 1990. Fire haz- ards at the urban-wildland interface: What the public ex- pects. Environmental Management 14(1): 57–62.

Crang, M. 1997. Analysing qualitative materials. In Methods in human geography: A guide for students doing a research project, ed. R. Flowerdew and D. Martin. London, UK: Long- man, 183–196.

Cronon, W. 1996. Introduction: In search of nature. In Un- common ground: Rethinking the human place in nature, ed. W. Cronon. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Co., 23– 66.

Daniel, T. C., E. Weidemann, and D. Hines. 2003. Assess- ing public tradeoffs between fire hazard and scenic beauty in the wildland-urban interface. In Homeowners, communi- ties, and wildfire: Science findings from the National Fire Plan. Proceedings from the Ninth International Symposium on Society and Resource Management. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-231, comp. P. Jakes. St. Paul, MN: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 36–44.

Davis, M. 1999. Ecology of fear: Los Angeles and the imagina- tion of disaster . New York: Vintage Books.

Dellasala, D. A., J. E. Williams, C. D. Deacon Williams, and J. F. Franklin. 2004. Beyond smoke and mirrors: A synthesis of fire policy and science. Conservation Biology 18(4): 976– 986.

Demeritt, D. 1998. Science, social constructivism and nature. In Remaking reality: Nature at the Millennium, ed. B. Braun and N. Castree. London, UK: Routledge, 173–193.

Desfor, G., and R. Keil. 2004. Civic environmentalism: The Don River in Toronto. In Nature and the city: Making envi- ronmental policy in Toronto and Los Angeles, ed. G. Desfor and R. Keil. Tucson, AR: The University of Arizona Press, 76–110.

Dombeck, M. P., J. E. Williams, and C. A. Wood. 2004. Wildfire policy and public lands: Integrating scientific understand- ing with social concerns across landscapes. Conservation Biology 18(4): 883–889.

El-Masri, S., and G. Tipple. 2002. Natural disaster, mitigation and sustainability: The case of developing countries. Inter- national Planning Studies 7(2): 157–175.

Escobar, A. 1996. Construction nature: Elements for a post- structuralist political ecology. Futures 28(4): 325–343.

Etkin, D., and I. L. Stefanovic. 2005. Mitigating natural dis- asters: The role of eco-ethics. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 10: 467–490.

Filmon, G. 2004a. Firestorm 2003: Provincial Review. http://bcwildfire.ca/History/ReportsandReviews/2003/Fire- stormReport.pdf.

———. 2004b. Public Meetings—Kelowna—November 26, 2003. Firestorm 2003 Provincial Review. http:// www.2003firestorm.gov.bc.ca/Kelowna112603A.pdf (ac- cessed April 2, 2008; site now discontinued).

Findlay, R. A. 2002. Resilience and sustainable com- munity design: The cases of Pukapuka, Iowa, and La Bahia de Jiquilisco. Paper presented at the Im- proving Post-disaster Reconstruction in Developing Countries Conference, May 23–25, in Montreal, Que- bec. http://www.grif.umontreal.ca/pages/i-rec%20papers/ robert.pdf.

Foreman, D. 2008. The real wilderness idea. In The wilder- ness debate rages on: Continuing the great new wilderness

debate, ed. M. P. Nelson and J. B. Callicott. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 378–397.

Freake, R., and D. Plant. 2004. Stories from the firestorm. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.

Hajer, M. A. 2006. Doing discourse analysis: Coalitions, prac- tices, meaning. In Words matter in policy and planning: Discourse theory and method in the social sciences, ed. M. van den Brink and T. Metze. Utrecht: Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap, 65–74.

Harrington, C. 2003. Blaze guts neighbourhood. Daily Press, August 27, 14.

Harvey, D. 1996. Justice, nature and the geography of differ- ence. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Helford, R. M. 2000. Constructing nature as constructing sci- ence: Expertise, activist science, and public conflict in the Chicago wilderness. In Restoring nature: Perspectives from the social sciences and humanities, ed. P. H. Gobster and R. B. Hull. Washington, DC: Island Press, 119–142.

Hewitt, K. 1971. Hazardousness of a place: A regional ecology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

———. 1980. Review of The environment as hazard by I. Bur- ton, R. W. Kates and G. F. White. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 70(2): 306–311.

———. 1983. The idea of calamity in a technocratic age. In In- terpretations of calamity from the viewpoint of human ecol- ogy, ed. K. Hewitt. Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin, 3–32.

Heyerdahl, E. K., K. Lertzman, and S. Karpuk. 2007. Local- scale controls of a low-severity fire regime (1750–1950), southern British Columbia, Canada. Ecoscience 14: 40–47.

Hirsch, K. 2005. Forest fires and sustainable forest manage- ment in Canada. Horizons (NRCan Policy Research Initia- tive) 6(4): 18–21.

Hoggart, K., L. Lees, and A. Davies. 2002. Researching human geography. London, UK: Arnold.

Hull IV, R. B., M. Lam, and G. Vigo. 1994. Place identity: Sym- bols of self in the urban fabric. Landscape & Urban Plan- ning 28: 2–3.

Kates, R. W. 1962. Hazard and choice perception in flood plain management. Dept. of Geography, Research Paper No. 78. Chicago, Il: The University of Chicago.

———. 2007. Gilbert F. White, 1911–2006, Great aspirations: Local studies, national comparisons, global challenges. http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/gfw/NAS lectures/gfwka tes.pdf.

Kauffman, J. B. 2004. Death rides the forest: Perceptions of fire, land use, and ecological restoration of western forests. Conservation Biology 18(4): 878–882.

Keane, R. E., S. F. Arno, and J. K. Brown. 1990. Simulating cu- mulative fire effects in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests. Ecology 71: 189–203.

Keil, R. 2003. Urban political ecology. Urban Geography 24(8): 723–738.

Keil, R., and J. Graham. 1998. Reasserting nature: Construct- ing urban environments after Fordism. In Remaking reality: Nature at the Millennium, ed. B. Braun and N. Castree. Lon- don, UK: Routledge, 100–123.

Kennedy, P. 2003. B.C. fires increase pressure on builders. The Globe and Mail, September 1, B3.

Kenney, W. A. 2003. A strategy for Canada’s urban forests. The Forestry Chronicle 79(4): 785–789.

Klenner, W., R. Walton, A. Arsenault, and L. Kremsater. 2008. Dry forests in the southern interior of British Columbia:

The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 00(0): 1–16

16 Magdalene Goemans and Patricia Ballamingie

Historic disturbances and implications for restoration and management. Forest Ecology and Management 256: 1711– 1722.

Kopp, M., Parks Services Manager, Regional District of Cen- tral Okanagan. 2008. Telephone communication with au- thor, December 16.

La Point, T. W. 2007. Understanding one’s place in the water- shed: How earth science can inform perceptions about the future of the New Orleans region. Technology in Society 29: 197–203.

Ladd, M., Area Supervisor, BC Parks. 2008. Telephone com- munication with author, August 15.

Lynn, W. S. 1998. Animals, ethics and geography. In Ani- mal geographies: Place, politics and identity in the nature- culture borderlands, ed. J. Wolch and J. Emel. London, UK: Verso, 280–298.

Martin, R. E., J. B. Kauffman, and J. D. Landsberg. 1988. Use of Prescribed Fire to Reduce Wildfire Potential. In Proceed- ings of the Symposium on Fire and Watershed Management: October 26–28, 1988, Sacramento, California, General Tech- nical Report GTR-PSW-109, tech. coord. N. H. Berg. Berke- ley, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, 17–22.

Masozera, M., M. Bailey, and C. Kerchner. 2007. Distribution of impacts of natural disasters across income groups: A case study of New Orleans. Ecological Economics 63: 299– 306.

McGee, T. K. 2005. Completion of recommended WUI fire mit- igation measures within urban households in Edmonton, Canada. Environmental Hazards 6: 147–157.

Nelson, K. C., M. C. Monroe, and J. F. Johnson. 2005. The look of the land: Homeowner landscape management and wildfire preparedness in Minnesota and Florida. Society and Natural Resources 18: 321–336.

NRCan (Natural Resources Canada). 2004. Points of view: Forest fires. http://canadaforests.nrcan.gc.ca/ article- topic/38?format=print (accessed August 19, 2008; site now discontinued).

———. 2005. The Canadian wildland fire strategy: A vision for an innovative and integrated approach to managing the risks. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. http://www.bookstore.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/publications?id=26218.

———. 2007. Managing forest fires: The path to sustainability. http://canadaforests.nrcan.gc.ca/articletopic/33?format=print (accessed January 19, 2008; site now discontinued).

Palmer, V. 2007. Time for action to cut forest fire risk. Prince George Citizen, June 23, 4.

Pelling, M. 2001. Natural disasters? In Social nature: Theory, practice, and politics, ed. N. Castree and B. Braun. Malden. MA: Blackwell, 170–188.

Plant, D. 2008. Kelowna residents unbeaten by fire. Kelowna Daily Courier , August 16. http://www.dailycourier.ca/ stories local.php?id=128741. (accessed October 7, 2008; site now discontinued)

Pollet, J., and P. N. Omi. 2002. Effect of thinning and pre- scribed burning on crown fire severity in ponderosa pine forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire 11(1): 1–10.

Prather, J. W., R. F. Noss, and T. D. Sisk. 2008. Real versus perceived conflicts between restoration of ponderosa pine forests and conservation of the Mexican spotted owl. For- est Policy and Economics 10: 140–150.

Pyne, S. J. 2007. Awful splendor: A fire history of Canada. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Reinhardt, E. D., R. E. Keane, D. E. Calkin, and J. D. Cohen. 2008. Objectives and consideration for wildland fuel treat- ment in forested ecosystems of the interior western United States. Forest Ecology and Management 256: 1997–2006.

Rose, G. 2001. Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. London, UK: Sage.

Shindler, B. 2007. Public acceptance of wildland fire condi- tions and fuel reduction practices: Challenges for federal forest managers. In People, fire and forests: A synthesis of wildfire social science, ed. T. C. Daniel, M. Carroll, C. Mose- ley, and C. Raish. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press, 37–54.

Shurmer-Smith, P. 2002. Reading texts. In Doing cultural ge- ography, ed. P. Shurmer-Smith. London, UK: Sage, 123–138.

Simmons, J., and L. McCann. 2006. The Canadian urban sys- tem: Growth and transition. In Canadian cities in transition: Local through global perspectives, 3rd ed., ed. T. Bunting and P. Filion. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 40– 64.

Stephen, G., Long Range Planning Manager, City of Ottawa. 2011. Email communication with author, November 17.

Swart, J. A. A., H. J. van der Windt, and J. Keulartz. 2001. Val- uation of nature in conservation and restoration. Restora- tion Ecology 9(2): 230–238.

Taylor, P. 1986. Respect for nature: A theory of environmental ethics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Tobin, G. A., and B. E. Montz. 1997. Natural hazards: Expla- nation and integration. New York: Guilford Press.

US Office of the President. 2002. Healthy Forests: an initiative for wildfire prevention and stronger communities. Washing- ton, DC: Office of the President. http://www.fs.fed.us/ projects/documents/HealthyForests Pres Policy%20A6 v2.pdf.

Vancouver Sun. 2003. Nature centre to focus on forest fire’s aftermath. The Vancouver Sun. December 26, B4.

Waitt, G. 2005. Doing discourse analysis. In Qualitative re- search methods in human geography, ed. I. Hay. Mel- bourne, UK: Oxford University Press, 19–29.

Watts, M. J. 1983. The poverty of theory. In Interpretations of calamity from the viewpoint of human ecology, ed. K. Hewitt. Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin, 231–262.

Weaver, H. 1943. Fire as an ecological and silvicultural factor in the ponderosa pine region of the Pacific slope. Journal of Forestry 41: 7–15.

White, G. F. 1945. Human adjustment to floods. Dept. of Geography, Research Paper No. 29. Chicago: The Uni- versity of Chicago. http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/gfw/ images/Human Adj Floods.pdf.

Wilson, I., Urban Forestry Supervisor, City of Kelowna. 2008. Telephone communication with author, August 8.

Winter, G., and J. S. Fried. 2000. Homeowner perspectives on fire hazard, responsibility, and management strategies at the wildland-urban interface. Society & Natural Resources 13: 33–49.

Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, and M. Pelling. 2004. At risk: Natu- ral hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. New York: Routledge.

Wisner, B., and P. Walker. 2005. The world conference on dis- aster viewed through the lens of political ecology: A dozen big questions for Kobe and beyond. Capitalism Nature So- cialism 16(2): 89–95.

Wolch, J. 2007. Green urban worlds. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97(2): 373–384.

The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2012, 00(0): 1–16