review lit

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=renc20

Environmental Communication

ISSN: 1752-4032 (Print) 1752-4040 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/renc20

The Role of Communication in Preparation for Wildland Fire: A Literature Review

Lauren Remenick

To cite this article: Lauren Remenick (2018) The Role of Communication in Preparation for Wildland Fire: A Literature Review, Environmental Communication, 12:2, 164-176, DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2017.1346519

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1346519

Published online: 17 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 109

View related articles

View Crossmark data

ADVANCED REVIEW

The Role of Communication in Preparation for Wildland Fire: A Literature Review Lauren Remenick

Department of Forest Ecosystems & Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA

ABSTRACT Fire regimes are needed for healthy forest ecosystems, but citizens who live parallel to public forests do not always understand or favour the mechanisms land managers use for fire prevention and preparation. One way that land managers and citizens may share concerns and overcome barriers is through effective communication, allowing both parties to adequately prepare for a wildfire event. While collaboration between land managers and citizens has been well studied, the research on communication between citizens and among land managers is less prevalent yet equally important. The lack of research on communication between these parties creates an incomplete picture of the spectrum of communication that takes place in preparation for a wildland fire event. This paper reviews the current literature on communication between and among citizens and land managers before a wildfire event.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 19 September 2016 Accepted 12 March 2017

KEYWORDS Communication; wildland urban interface; WUI; fire event; collaboration

Introduction

Fire defensive behaviours reduce risk and increase safety for communities adjacent to forested land, known as the wildland urban interface (WUI). However, public land managers often find themselves at odds with the values and inclination of residents living in the WUI to take on such behaviours (Wright, 2007). Communication is one major tactic to reduce the discrepancy between the values of land managers and WUI citizens. This paper cites three major outcomes of improved communi- cation between government agencies and citizens: (1) relationships and trust may be strengthened, (2) collaboration may be better utilized and more effective to meet end goals, and (3) the safety of those living and working in the WUI may increase.

First, there has traditionally been a lack of communication between citizens and the government. A lack of public trust in the government, as well as a need for a clear explanation of scientific infor- mation (Ascher, Steelman, & Healy, 2010) creates a barrier for government agencies that are attempting to influence the public to take defensive action (Zaksek & Arvai, 2004). However, the implementation of fire safety programmes and Community-Wide Protection Plans (CWPP) has increased both the public’s knowledge of fire and trust in land managers in recent years (McCaffrey, Stidham, Toman, & Shindler, 2011). Nevertheless, communication, collaboration and the creation of defensible space needs to be an ongoing process for continued fire safety.

Second, successful collaboration is enhanced by and fosters communication. The National Fire Plan of 2000 first mandated collaboration between government agencies and WUI citizens. However, collaboration has not always been implemented due a variety of reasons such as low trust, lack of understanding of how to effectively collaborate, and little incentive to do so. Collaboration is a useful

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Lauren Remenick [email protected]

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION, 2018 VOL. 12, NO. 2, 164–176 https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1346519

tool for sharing values and ideas, increasing trust, and implementing fire defensive behaviours that are necessary for the safety of those living and working in the WUI.

Third, past forest management plans, such as massive fire suppression, have created a buildup of fuel and unhealthy forests (Calkin, Gebert, Jones, & Neilson, 2005). This fuel buildup jeopardizes the safety of citizens living near forested land. If homeowners take defensive action on their property, the risk of fire affecting their land and the WUI will become substantially less (Cohen, 2010; Gunderson, 2008; Tierney, 2009). Recent research has shown that homeowners may be more open to defensive action if there is more open communication, education, and knowledge sharing between land man- agers and WUI residents (e.g. Paveglio, Carroll, Absher, & Norton, 2009).

With the goal of fire preparedness in mind, this paper examines previous literature that sheds light on effective communication practices, strategies, and outcomes between government agencies and WUI communities. An overview of the current literature is separated into three parts: communi- cation between agencies and within an agency, communication between citizens and agencies, and communication among citizens. Each section will discuss limitations of the research as well as rec- ommendations for future research. Finally, this paper will conclude by highlighting overall findings of the current literature on communication before a wildfire event.

Background

Landscape alterations and land-management practices such as logging forests, building roads, cattle- grazing, and wildfire suppression have led to a decrease in forest health and an increase in wildfire severity (Zaksek & Arvai, 2004). This is a major problem for residents who live in high-risk areas, such as communities near the WUI, where developed land is situated near or next to an area of unoc- cupied land. When a forest or grassland is affected by wildfire, residents of the WUI are at the most risk (Kauffman, 2004).

In order to prepare for wildfires, many WUI communities and local government agencies implement planning strategies. Typically three components are needed for an effective strategy: physical, financial, and social capability. Often the physical and financial means are secured by pol- icy, but social needs are not considered (Zaksek & Arvai, 2004). Social capability includes social norms, cultural traditions, and family customs (Shindler, 2000) that align with the proposed strategy. Many studies have found that without cultivating social components such as trust and strong relationships, WUI residents may become wary of government agency motivations and their capa- bilities, making them less likely to comply with agency plans for fuel mitigation treatments (McCaf- frey et al., 2011). Fuel treatment is the removal of fuel sources (such as pine needles, shrubs, woody debris, and dead trees) in the forest and around homes. It is one of the most effective ways to mitigate fire, as fires need heat, oxygen, and fuel to survive (Aronson & Kulakowski, 2013). Consequently, it is also one of the main components of fire defensive behaviours.

Fire defensive behaviours are necessary to reduce risk in WUI communities, but government agencies may find themselves at odds with the values and willingness of citizens living in the WUI (Toman, Shindler, & Olsen, 2008). Behaviours include citizen- and community-led actions such as raking pine needles, cleaning out gutters, pruning trees, moving propane tanks, and some- times creating a lawn to serve as a protective barrier (Firewise Communities Program, n.d.). These protective actions require collaboration, time, and money, which may be a deterrent for WUI resi- dents, who are often older citizens (Collins, 2008; Wells, 2009). Furthermore, land managers often work with wildfires on a continual basis, so their perception of fire risk is typically high. In contrast, WUI homeowners are generally involved in very few wildfires, so their perception of risk may be very low. This creates a conflicting dynamic between land managers, who are highly motivated to reduce risk, and homeowners, who are less motivated (Steelman, 2008).

Agency-led defensive actions generally centre around fuels treatment such as tree removal and prescribed burns, but aesthetics are often highly valued for residents living on forested land. Remov- ing trees alters the traditional yet unhealthy landscape that many residents find aesthetically pleasing,

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 165

and residents may be wary of prescribed burns escaping the designated area (Brenkert, Champ, & Flores, 2005; Jakes, Kruger, Monroe, Nelson, & Sturtevant, 2007). Furthermore, research has found that residents are most familiar with the message that all fire is dangerous; new messages that some fire is beneficial, such as controlled fire or prescribed burns, is slowly gaining momentum (McDaniel, 2014; Paveglio, Carroll, et al., 2009). These physical and cultural barriers can be difficult for land managers who work directly with the public. However, effective communication may be a pivotal solution (Brenkert-Smith, Champ, & Flores, 2012).

The National Fire Plan of 2000 and Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 mandated that gov- ernment agencies collaborate with WUI stakeholders—the public, community organizations, local businesses, natural resource agencies, and others whose work and livelihood depend on the WUI (US Congress, 2003; USDA, USDI, 2004). However, government agencies are still working to find the most effective means for successful collaboration (Kocher et al., 2012). The variety of values or biases of WUI stakeholders may be particularly difficult for land managers to address in the col- laborative process (Burns, Taylor, & Hogan, 2008). Nonetheless, studies in a fire context have shown that communication and outreach in particular are helpful for effective collaboration (Shindler, Gor- don, McCaffrey, & Toman, 2011).

Two-way interpersonal communication is often most effective for collaborative efforts because it builds relationships and increases trust (Shindler et al., 2011). Interpersonal communication can be defined as the sharing of verbal and nonverbal language (symbols) to convey meaning between two people (Hargie, 2010). Though much literature has been written about communication, natural resource researchers are just beginning to understand its role in land management at the WUI (McCaffrey et al., 2011). McCaffrey et al. (2011) state a need for a synthesis of work to clarify factors that influence fire preparation activities. As communication is one major influencing factor, this paper highlights the components of effective communication as it pertains to fire defensive behaviour.

When planning a strategy for defensive action against the threat of wildland fire, communication between multiple stakeholders has been found to enable implementation of effective strategies (Shindler, Toman, & McCaffrey, 2009). Understanding the communication that typically takes place between stakeholders can be helpful when planning a strategy, as it allows those in the planning process a bit of insight that can be acted upon wisely (Jakes, Burns, et al., 2007). This insight can prevent tension, create more effective and clear communication, and allow for common language to be used. Though communication strategies often differ for each community according to that community’s concerns, needs, resources available, social capital and other factors (Eriksen & Prior, 2011; McCaffrey, 2004; Shindler & Toman, 2003), there are common elements among success- ful strategies that deserve attention.

While collaboration in general has been well studied, only interpersonal communication between agencies and citizens in the wildfire context has been researched in depth. Research on interpersonal communication between other stakeholders, such as multiple agencies, local organizations, and local business owners, is meager yet equally important. The lack of research on communication between other parties creates an incomplete picture of the spectrum of communication that takes place in preparation for a wildland fire event. This paper examines the current literature on communication before a wildfire. Specifically, three relationships are examined: communication between agencies and within an agency, communication between an agency and citizens, and communication among citizens.

Inter- and intra-agency communication

Communication between and within agencies is extremely important because the accuracy of shared information and the efficiency with which that information is acted upon may determine the safety and survival of communities that experience a natural disaster event (Hoppner, Whittle, Brundl, & Buchecker, 2012). While research on inter- and intra- agency communication is somewhat prevalent

166 L. REMENICK

in the hazards and natural disaster literature, there is little literature on inter- and intra-agency communication in the field of wildland fire. To date, research on this topic focuses on how agencies can be most effective when crafting a strategy to communicate to the public. Other research has focused on communication during, rather than prior to, a wildfire event. While not within the scope of pre-event communication, research on communication at different parts of a wildfire event can be useful in understanding what is needed prior to the event. Research on inter- and intra-agency communication before natural disasters may also be useful to fill in the gaps within the wildland fire literature.

When creating a communication strategy, it is highly effective to create an initial strategy to pre- sent to the agency, a revised strategy to present to the public, and then a final strategy that the public can discuss and agree upon (Toman, Shindler, & Brunson, 2006). This method of planning allows the agency to create internal cohesion by determining objectives, assessing the target audience and other stakeholders, evaluating possible resources, and anticipating conflicts that are likely to arise as the public gets involved. Being open and flexible to changes aids in the success of this process. Poor plan- ning or cooperation was found to lead to greater uncertainty, distrust and weakened relationships in a study by Toman et al. (2006). However, those agencies and communities that collaborated and were open to receiving new ideas had an increased understanding of one another, increased trust, stronger relationships, and better communication (Toman et al., 2006).

While the literature on interagency communication before a fire is generally lacking, several research teams have touched on interagency communication and collaboration during a fire (see McCaffrey, Toman, Stidham, & Shindler, 2013), as one might argue that this is the most pivotal time for effective communication and collaboration within a government agency. St. Denis, Hughes, and Palen (2012) studied a virtual operations support team that resided throughout the United States, but informed and communicated with Oregon residents of the Shadow Lake Fire. The team primarily used social media to organize themselves, communicate with the public about fire- fighting progress, address public concerns, manage donations, and contact volunteers. Though this strategy was mostly deployed during an emergency event, it was found that advance establishment of the support team, is more likely to be effective when communicating with the public because of the built trust and secured communication lines.

By connecting with the community about questions and concerns, the support team was able to relay those concerns to the fire response team, who adjusted their practices within reason to accom- modate community needs. As a support team, coordination, trust, and solidarity were formed throughout the fire response process. The greatest limitations for the support team were in ineffec- tive federal means of communication such as poorly created websites and limited capacity for inte- grative communication (St. Denis et al., 2012).

This example, in which communication was a major barrier for all parties involved, supports the hypothesis that lack of internal support is an impediment to implementing possible fire defence tac- tics (Arvai, Gregory, Ohlson, Blackwell, & Gray, 2006; Shindler et al., 2009; Williamson, 2007). Lit- erature in the field of hazards and natural disasters supports the idea that government agencies are perceived as having low collaboration and coordination (Kapucu, 2005). This is of concern because an increase in internal support could remove the barriers for implementing alternate fire defence tactics and therefore increase the safety of those living in the WUI (Winter, Vogt, & McCaffrey, 2006).

Between agencies, this may be in part due to a difference in values and end goals (Anthony, Cow- den-Hodgson, O’Hair, Heath, & Eosco, 2014) or due to competing interests (Gil-Garcia, 2012), as communication can be difficult when the shared information is at odds with the values of the agency receiving the information. Within an agency, low support for employees may foster a high turnover rate. As such, any trust that has been built between WUI citizens and the agency would be lost, thus potentially decreasing the acceptance of fire defence education.

It is important to understand the communication that takes place within a government agency because improved communication and collaboration could lead to improved work conditions,

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 167

greater internal support, and more resources allocated to land managers. In turn, land managers who are well-supported may be better able to serve the public, thus increasing the safety and well-being of WUI citizens (Winter et al., 2006).

Citizen-agency communication

Perhaps the most studied form of communication is between the citizen and the agency that man- ages public land around the WUI (McCaffrey et al., 2013). Research on this topic includes the amount of communication between citizens and agencies, why communication is useful and necess- ary, how to communicate effectively, and the different types of communication that can be used in different arenas. It is important to understand the communication that takes place between citizens and agencies because citizens’ knowledge, desire, and willingness to practice fire defensive beha- viours and their trust in land managers hinges on communication. Similarly, agencies will be better able to help meet citizens’ needs, share their values, and adjust their biases if they collaborate with WUI citizens. Therefore, communication between citizens and agencies is critical because it fosters trust, which strengthens relationships, enables better collaboration, and therefore aids in creating safer and more prepared WUI communities (e.g. Hoppner et al., 2012; Kapucu, 2005, 2008; Rogers, Burnside-Lawry, Dragisic, & Mills, 2016).

Typically, past communication between citizens and agencies was poor, and researchers still find that many land managers do not interact with communities as there is little direct incentive to do so (Stidham, Toman, McCaffrey, & Shindler, 2011) or managers are unsure of how to implement col- laborative efforts (Burns et al., 2008). As agencies attempt to transition to a new way of managing the land, communication is increasingly important to establish trust and safety for those who live in the WUI. A continued lack of communication results in a dearth of citizen knowledge about managers’ openness, leadership, skills, and management outcomes (Shindler et al., 2009). Poor communication can have implications for managers as well. While managers may create a well-thought out and com- prehensive mitigation plan, without approval of the public, it is likely to fail (Shindler, 2000).

Though communication is frequently lacking among communities, citizens are often willing to work with agencies on the planning process and decision-making of fire safety (Paveglio, Carroll, et al., 2009; Shindler et al., 2009; Taylor et al., 2007). Furthermore, both agencies and citizens view education and outreach as vital for the implementation of a fire management strategy (Zaksek & Arvai, 2004). Collaboration on management plans, a form of integrative communication, is often the most effective form of influencing fire defensive behaviour (Zaksek & Arvai, 2004). However, strategies for fire response during a fire are just as likely to be followed if citizens have a strong under- standing of the plan before a fire event occurs, even when the agency is the sole creator of the man- agement plan (Taylor et al., 2007).

Researchers Paveglio, Carroll, et al. (2009) studied WUI homeowners’ sentiments towards federal agencies in the wake of new land-management practices and its potentially conflicting messages. Their findings seem to suggest that we are in a time of transition. Land managers have changed their practices, but they need the support, understanding and cooperation of homeowners to implement these practices effectively. Specifically, it was found that homeowners did not feel included in decisions made about the land, nor did they feel informed about the fire defensive strat- egies that the federal agencies used on the land adjacent to their homes. However, homeowners were willing to learn more about adequate fire preparedness, and reported positive associations with fire education programmes, such as Firewise and FireSmart, largely due to their approach, which included face-to-face interactions. While progress is being made, there is still a need for increased interaction and communication among land managers and WUI homeowners (Paveglio, Carroll, et al., 2009), as well-planned communication strategies can increase public knowledge, attitudes and behaviours about fire mitigation techniques, as well as improve relationships between local citi- zens and agencies (McCaffrey, 2004).

168 L. REMENICK

When planning a communication strategy, both information content and mode should be con- sidered (McCaffrey, 2004). The two main modes of sending a message can be categorized as uni- directional and integrative. Unidirectional communication is a linear, one-way process of conveying a message, such as in a speech or lecture. It has been found to be most effective in initial agency outreach. Integrative communication is bi or multi-directional, such as in a discussion or conversation. It is often less formal, better received by the public in most situations, and helps to build relationships (Toman et al., 2006).

Unidirectional communication

Unidirectional communication is often used to send information to the masses and may take the form of pamphlets, flyers, brochures, or public service announcements. This type of communication serves as a timely and efficient way to inform citizens of a hazardous event (Carroll & Cohn, 2007), but it is most often used as a reactionary tool or used in the aftermath of an event rather than as a preventative or educational tool (Paveglio, Norton, & Carroll, 2011). Mass messaging is beneficial in that it can be employed quickly and to a broad audience. The drawbacks are that it can be delayed, inaccurate, and is not generally useful for giving out detailed or copious amounts of information. Nonetheless, the importance of quickly communicating between those who have information and those who need information is paramount for the safety of the public (Toman et al., 2006).

Mass media is best used to alert the public about a current issue (McCaffrey et al., 2011). However, during a fire event, mass information can be delayed, inaccurate, unreliable, and even harmful (Stid- ham et al., 2011; Taylor et al., 2007). Effective communication during a fire event could be greatly increased by communicating with the public before an event about where and whom to receive infor- mation, understanding the information needs of communities, and strengthening online and tele- phone infrastructure (Taylor et al., 2007).

To further understand what information the public typically receives, Jacobson, Monroe, and Marynowski (2001) studied newspaper articles that highlighted fire events. They found that just 19% of articles mentioned the benefits or constraints of prescribed fire thus concluding that the newspaper articles were doing little to communicate risk reduction to WUI residents. Paveglio et al. (2011) also found that local newspaper articles were providing little information about fire defensive actions or precautionary measures in WUI communities. The researchers found that articles framed wildfires in the older, out-dated view of fires as a negative or harmful event that should be suppressed. Both studies display the little communication that takes place about fire defen- sive actions within a community, and highlights the need for increased educational efforts.

Using the idea that newspaper articles may frame wildland fires in a certain way, Wilson, Ascher, and Toman (2012) examined residents’ perceptions of land management and forest health in the WUI. That is, they examined whether WUI residents would find fuel management more favourable if they framed fuel management as a way to (1) restore, (2) improve, or (3) maintain forest health. Residents were communicated to in one of three ways and asked how much fuel mitigation failure they were willing to accept to achieve greater potential benefits. Residents given the restoration frame were more willing than the other two frames to accept risk. This shows how slight changes in com- munication can affect WUI residents’ perceptions of fuel management. The researchers suggest that communicators carefully select how the message is framed to maximize the desired intent (Wilson et al., 2012).

Carefully planning a communication frame or strategy with the public is integral because it can change residents’ views, understanding of land management, tolerance of loss and even behaviour change (McCaffrey, 2004). Reframing how agencies and stakeholders communicate seems to be especially needed in public or town hall-style meetings. Public meetings, sometimes considered inte- grative communication, are commonly regarded as the least effective and least favoured form of communication, perhaps because they often take on a unidirectional mode of communication. The one-way form of communication creates a perception that community members’ concerns

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 169

are not heard, their suggestions are seen as invalid, their needs are dismissed, that they’re being talked down to, and that the meetings are a waste of time (Shindler et al., 2009). Though research has shown that many citizens dislike public meetings, there is great potential for public meetings to be used as a tool to communicate between WUI stakeholders. Reframing the communication style at public meetings might serve as a way to alter attendees perceptions of land management.

Integrative communication

Information that is integrative and allows for two-way interpersonal communication is often rated highest in trustworthiness and helpfulness (Brenkert et al., 2005) as integrative learning identifies and breaks down barriers, promotes communication, interaction, and increases trust (Eriksen & Prior, 2011). Though the public is often more familiar with unidirectional messages, the preferred method of communication is usually integrative, and on site experiences such as field tours, are gen- erally regarded as the most valuable learning opportunities (Shindler et al., 2009). The two-way mes- saging of informal communication through direct discussion is highly regarded by both managers (Abrams et al., 2011) and citizens (Shindler et al., 2009). Managers have been found to believe that field tours are a good resource for common understanding (Abrams et al., 2011) and behaviour change (Toman et al., 2006).

Positive communication experiences may increase participant knowledge, which impact per- ceived benefits, and in turn increase support for fuel treatments (Ascher, Wilson, & Toman, 2013). A necessary caveat however, is the finding that negative experience decreases support for pre- scribed burns (Brunson & Evan, 2005), though Toman, Stidham, Shindler and McCaffrey (2011) found no evidence to support this hypothesis. Both direct (Kollmus & Agyeman, 2002) and indirect experience (McCaffrey, 2004) has been found to play a role in behaviour change, but on a temporal scale, in that perception of risk increases with experience, which in turn spurs behaviour change, but only for a period of time after the event (McCaffrey, 2004). In general, education that emphasizes an understanding of personal risk and benefits of wildfire preparedness is likely to be successful for increasing support among the public (Ascher et al., 2013).

Researchers have found that when people need more information to make a decision regarding behaviour change, they seek out others for integrative communication (Toman et al., 2006). Gener- ally, they first turn to official sources of information (Brenkert et al., 2005), but if that information is insufficient or unavailable, they use other, possibly less credible, information sources such as family, friends, or media outlets (Sutton, Palen, & Shklovski, 2008). This highlights the need for managers to be open, inviting, and have a strong relationship with citizens. If citizens know that managers are willing and available to provide information, they will be less likely to turn to other, possibly less reliable, sources (Sutton et al., 2008).

Stidham et al. (2011) examined the role of pre-fire communication for two communities that var- ied greatly in their preparation and were evacuated due to wildfire. One community in Utah had little correspondence with the local agencies, little experience with fire evacuations, and no action strategy for a wildfire event. The other community in Oregon had trust and strong relationships with the local agency managers, had planned action strategies in place, and a clear understanding of where and from whom to get information. During the fires, the Utah community felt a great sense of frustration, uncertainty, and fear. Communication was poor and citizens felt unprepared. In the Oregon com- munity, a fire information officer relayed information from the fire fighters working on the fire to the citizens who needed context-specific information to ease their concerns. Because of the strong communication lines, the Oregon citizens had greater understanding of what was happening, what parts of the community were affected, and were generally more informed. While both fire events wrought the communities with emotion and stress, the Oregon community benefitted greatly from the pre-fire preparations (Stidham et al., 2011).

The communication strategies in Oregon that were implemented well before the fire served as a lifeline for the residents whose houses were at risk. A year after the fire the Oregon residents calmly

170 L. REMENICK

and logically reported on the fire, while the Utah residents responded with strong emotions, and reported intentions to take more risky behaviours for the next fire (such as refusing to evacuate). This case study highlights the impact that a pre-fire communication plan can have on a community when a fire crisis arises. Communities without a strong plan are more likely to react negatively and blame agencies for mismanaging forests, while communities that understand the risks and fire science before a fire are more likely to trust agencies in succeeding fire events (Stidham et al., 2011).

While community-based collaboration is useful, and often even required by forest and fire man- agement policies, there are few guides to effectively enact collaborative decision-making. Burns et al. (2008) suggest four stages of collaboration. First is to establish WUI stakeholders and hold a public meeting. Second is to develop a working definition of the issue, gather any missing stakeholders or resources and develop set rules for the community. Third is to create an agenda, organize small groups, perform research, develop outcomes and engage in decision-making. Finally, the group acts on their decisions through implementation and evaluation. If implemented successfully, this col- laborative process can have advantageous effects throughout the community including improved trust and relationships, a feeling of ownership of community decisions, greater knowledge and edu- cation, and better-supported policy (Burns et al., 2008).

Successful communication between WUI residents and land managers before a fire may have long-lasting beneficial effects for all. Community preparedness in the event of a wildfire can be the most immediate and visible result (Shindler et al., 2009; Taylor et al., 2007). Acceptance of fuels treatment and intent to act in a fire-safe manner is equally important (Shindler et al., 2009). Long-term effects include trust in land managers (McCaffrey et al., 2013; Toman et al., 2011), reduced uncertainty about land manager intentions (Veil, Buehner, & Palenchar, 2011) or effects of fuel treatments, and an increased ability to collaborate on current or future projects (Shindler & Neburka, 1997). Addressing the needs of the community while expressing concern and empathy fosters feelings of trust and credibility (Veil et al., 2011). Finally, communication, collaboration, trust, and understanding between citizens and agencies empowers WUI citizens and helps to create resi- lient communities that are adapted to fire (Martin, Bender, & Raish, 2007; Veil et al., 2011).

Communication between citizens

Communication among residents is not well researched in the wildland fire literature (Wells, 2009), but is important because community relationships may be a main driver for landowner preparedness (Eriksen & Prior, 2011) or behaviour change towards fuels reduction (McCaffrey et al., 2011). To date, most research on wildland fire focuses on risk perception, motivations for preparedness, effective planning techniques, and social behaviour. Local knowledge, community groups, and organizations vary by context, making it difficult to study (Brenkert et al., 2005). However, com- munication between citizens is important to understand because there may be incorrect biases that educators could correct or specific unknown values of citizens they could acknowledge (Burns et al., 2008). Indeed, researchers have found that local newspaper articles often frame their articles about wildland fires differently than land managers themselves view the fire (e.g. Jacobson et al., 2001; Paveglio et al., 2011).

Tapping into a community’s social capital by identifying leaders within a community can be use- ful for land managers who are trying to connect to citizens. Working with leaders is a way for man- agers to quickly and efficiently understand the needs, concerns and values of the community without talking to every household (Toman et al., 2008). Lang, Nelson, and Jakes (2006) found that citizens become community leaders because they care about the community land, the safety of their neigh- bours, or do so at the request of other residents. Leaders are not only important to land managers but to their neighbours as well. The leaders in the researchers’ study were found to influence citizen fire preparation by speaking out about fire issues, strengthening relationships with residents, obtaining community commitment to fire defensive behaviour, and pulling together community resources. They served as good motivators and facilitators. Citizens reported that the most important part of

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 171

a leader was having good interpersonal skills. This highlights the need for agencies to identify and work with community groups and leaders to increase outreach and improve communication (Erik- sen & Prior, 2011).

Understanding the communication that takes place between citizens to create a community- level decision-making process, community empowerment, and self-determination can be very useful for WUI stakeholders. By knowing what makes for a strong, resilient, fire-adapted com- munity, land managers and leaders can help communities self-organize by setting the stage for successful communication within a community. Many WUI residents are either part-time resi- dents or chose to live in a rural area for the minimized interaction with others. Communication between community members may be minimal or nonexistent. Increasing and improving com- munication between residents can help them be more aware of each other’s defensive behaviour actions. This is important because the safe practices that neighbours exercise can impact each other’s property (Jakes, Burns, et al., 2007). If one resident within a WUI neighbourhood does not implement fire defensive practices, it could jeopardize the safety of the surrounding houses and residents. Therefore, communication between WUI citizens can increase the safety of the whole community.

Gaps in the literature

There is a vast amount of research on the communication between WUI citizens and agencies. Though the typical relationship between citizens and agencies of the past has been meager or even nonexistent, recent research has uncovered many reasons and tactics for bringing together these two parties. Because of the movement towards greater communication between citizens and agencies, more collaboration, trust, and fire defensive behaviour has occurred. It may be that because of this, there is now greater safety in WUI areas for local citizens, businesses, agencies, and firefighters.

While there has recently been a greater understanding of the communication that takes place between citizens and agencies, there is still much to learn about the interactions within and between agencies. There are very few articles and resources that examine the agency workplace. Though some researchers have hypothesized that internal support is an obstacle for land managers, few have yet to explore this realm. From the research on collaboration, we know that collaboration of stakeholders at the WUI includes a vast array of parties and objectives (Burns et al., 2008; Shindler et al., 2011). We also know that collaborative efforts may be considered a waste of time if not well implemented (Wynsma, 2013). However, the communication within and between agencies warrants further study for multiple reasons.

Understanding the communication between and within agencies is paramount for solving poten- tial conflicts and increasing support. A higher job turnover rate could be a result of lack of support for agency managers. When this happens, any relationship between the manger and residents could be broken, possibly resulting in decreased trust and acceptance of management plans (Winter, Vogt, & McCaffrey, 2004). Greater supportive communication or finding a common language among par- ties may increase the efficiency and effectiveness of collaborative efforts. Improved collaboration in the WUI can be instrumental for community safety, as efficiency and speed is often necessary when preparing for an unforeseen fire event. Studies that focus on the communication between employees and employers within an agency are therefore necessary for increasing support and safety. A quali- tative study that examines the interpersonal communication within an agency could be a first step to understand the support systems that agency managers have. Similarly, a qualitative study that exam- ines the communication between agencies is necessary to explore the current state of relations. Studying the interpersonal communication—both verbal and nonverbal—of agency representatives in a collaborative setting would shed light on how to improve supportive communication, thereby increasing the effectiveness of collaborative efforts.

172 L. REMENICK

Finally, the gap in fire literature on communication between citizens needs a stronger focus. There is some literature about the influence that citizen communication can have on fire defen- sive behaviour (e.g. McCaffrey et al., 2011). There is also literature on the motivations for pre- paredness, risk perception, and building social capital, but none of these topics address the verbal and nonverbal communication that takes place between citizens in preparation for a wildland fire event. Specific communication modes and content are largely unknown. However, it is paramount to examine and understand the interactions between citizens to help to create a complete picture of the communication that takes place before a fire event and to increase the safety of everyone in the WUI. For land managers, understanding how to informally talk to citi- zens could be helpful for effective communication—both in relaying and understanding con- cerns (Shindler & Gordon, 2005). Additionally, land managers could work on correcting biases or misunderstandings (Burns et al., 2008). Therefore, a qualitative, exploratory study is needed to examine the interpersonal interactions between WUI citizens. This could be under- taken in multiple ways. One route might be to sit in on a community meeting and examine what topics are most important to the group, what language is used, and the organization of the meeting. Understanding how a community functions would be a good model for others who wish to join the community or work with residents.

Conclusion

Poor land-management practices in the past and total suppression of forest fire regimes have created a difficult situation for land managers today. Knowing that wildfires are needed for a healthy forest ecosystem, land managers are charged with the responsibility of managing fires while ensuring the safety of citizens that live in the WUI. Land managers and communities often use strategic plans and programmes to prepare for a wildfire event. An integral part of this planning process is communi- cation between and among management agencies and WUI residents (Brenkert-Smith et al., 2012).

Effective communication between citizens and agencies has been found to influence acceptance of management strategies, build and strengthen relationships (McCaffrey et al., 2013), enhance trust, decrease uncertainty (Veil et al., 2011), and increase community empowerment, resilience and prepa- redness for a wildfire event (Martin et al., 2007). Collaboration on a common goal is a two-way process that is both enhanced by and enhances communication (Shindler & Gordon, 2005). However, ineffective communication can have negative effects. Therefore, agency communication mode and strategy need to be planned and understood well before implementation (Toman et al., 2006).

The most effective communication strategy and mode depends on the context. Communities vary in their needs, concerns, values, resources available, and social capital, so each community will need to be treated differently (Shindler, 2000). However, there are common themes between communities that can act as a guide for where to start.

Mass communication, such as flyers, public service announcements, brochures, and any other form of unidirectional information, is generally most effective for widely spreading ideas and simple knowledge (McCaffrey et al., 2011). It is usually not helpful when delivering detailed information, as the information may become distorted or not well understood (Toman et al., 2006). Integrative com- munication, such as discussions, field tours, collaborative efforts, and online forums, is often found to be the most effective option for giving detailed information (Eriksen & Prior, 2011). Integrative modes of information are often sought out when people are trying to form an opinion (Toman et al., 2006). Therefore, integrative communication is an important aspect of influencing fire mitiga- tion behaviours (Brenkert-Smith et al., 2012).

Though there is much information on the importance of communication for acceptance of wild- fire preparedness, literature on effective communication strategies and modes is moderate and research on the current nuances of communication between agencies and between citizens is meager. More research is needed to understand both the most effective and most commonly used forms of communication in the WUI.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 173

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCID

Lauren Remenick http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2294-6767

References

Abrams, J., Creighton, J., Moseley, C., Olsen, C., Davis, E. J., Pomeroy, A., … Fitzgerald, S. (2011). Fire science needs in the Pacific Northwest. Ecosystem Workforce Program Working Paper 33. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, Ecosystem Workforce Program. 11 p.

Anthony, K. E., Cowden-Hodgson, K. R., O’Hair, H. D., Heath, R. L., & Eosco, G. M. (2014). Complexities in com- munication and collaboration in the hurricane warning system. Communication Studies, 65(5), 468–483.

Aronson, G., & Kulakowski, D. (2013). Bark beetle outbreaks, wildfires and defensible space: How much area do we need to treat to protect homes and communities? International Journal of Wildland Fire, 22, 256–265.

Arvai, J., Gregory, R., Ohlson, D., Blackwell, B., & Gray, R. (2006). Letdowns, wake-up calls, and constructed prefer- ences: Responses to fuel and wildfire risks. Journal of Forestry, 104(4), 173–181.

Ascher, T. J., Wilson, R. S., & Toman, E. (2013). The importance of affect, perceived risk and perceived benefit in understanding support for fuels management among wildland–urban interface residents. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 22(3), 267–276.

Ascher, W., Steelman, T., & Healy, R. (2010). Knowledge and environmental policy: Re-imagining the boundaries between science and politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Brenkert, H., Champ, P., & Flores, N. (2005). Mitigation of wildfire risk by homeowners. Res. Note RMRS- RN-25WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 9 p.

Brenkert-Smith, H., Champ, P. A., & Flores, N. (2012). Trying not to get burned: Understanding homeowners’ wildfire risk–mitigation behaviors. Environmental Management, 50(6), 1139–1151.

Brunson, M. W., & Evans, J. (2005). Badly burned? Effects of an escaped prescribed burn on social acceptability of wildland fuels treatments. Journal of Forestry, 103(3), 134–138.

Burns, M. R., Taylor, J. G., & Hogan, J. T. (2008). Integrative healing: The importance of community collaboration in post fire recovery and pre fire planning. In W. E. Martin, C. Raish, & B. Kent (Eds.), Wildfire risk: Human percep- tions and management implications (pp. 81–97). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Calkin, D. E., Gebert, K. M., Jones, J. G., & Neilson, R. P. (2005). Forest service large fire area burned and suppression expenditure trends, 1970–2002. Journal of Forestry, 103(4), 179–183.

Carroll, M. S., & Cohn, P. J. (2007). Community impacts of large wildfire events: Consequences and actions during the fire. In Daniel, T. C., Carroll, M. S., Moseley, C., & Raish, C. (Eds.), People, fire and forests: A synthesis of wildfire social science (pp. 73–99). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Cohen, J. (2010). The wildland-urban interface fire problem. Fremontia, 38(2), 16–22. Collins, T. W. (2008). What influences hazard mitigation? Household decision making about wildfire risks in

Arizona’s white mountains. Professional Geographer, 60, 508–526. Eriksen, C., & Prior, T. (2011). The art of learning: Wildfire, amenity migration and local environmental knowledge.

International Journal of Wildland Fire, 20(4), 612–624. Firewise Communities Program. (n.d.). Firewise communities. Retrieved September 18, 2016 from The basics of defen-

sible space and the “home ignition zone” http://www.firewise.org/wildfire-preparedness/be-firewise/home-and- landscape/defensible-space.aspx

Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2012). Towards a smart state? Inter-agency collaboration, information integration, and beyond. Information Polity, 17(3), 269–280.

Gunderson, L. (2008). Comparing ecological and human community resilience. White Paper to Community Resilience Initiative, Southeastern Regional Research Initiative, Oak Ridge National Lab, TN. Who Are We.

Hargie, O. (2010). Skilled interpersonal communication: Research, theory and practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Hoppner, C., Whittle, R., Brundl, M., & Buchecker, M. (2012). Linking social capacities and risk communication in

Europe: A gap between theory and practice? Natural Hazards, 64(2), 1753–1778. Jacobson, S. K., Monroe, M. C., & Marynowski, S. (2001). Fire at the wildland urban interface: The influence of experi-

ence and mass media on knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29(3), 929–937. Jakes, P., Burns, S., Cheng, A., Saeli, E., Nelson, K., Brummel, R., … Williams, D. (2007). USDA Forest Service

Proceedings RMRS-P-46CD, pp. 613–624. Jakes, P., Kruger, L., Monroe, M., Nelson, K., & Sturtevant, V. (2007). Improving wildfire preparedness: Lessons from

communities across the US. Human Ecology Review, 14(2), 188–197.

174 L. REMENICK

Kapucu, N. (2005). Interorganizational coordination in dynamic context: Networks in emergency response manage- ment. Connections, 26(2), 9–24.

Kapucu, N. (2008). Collaborative emergency management: Better community organising, better public preparedness and response. Disasters, 32(2), 239–262.

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

Kocher, S. D., Toman, E., Trainor, S. F., Wright, V., Briggs, J. S., Goebel, C. P., … Thode, A. (2012). How can we span the boundaries between wildland fire science and management in the United States? Journal of Forestry, 110(8), 421–428.

Kollmus, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.

Lang, E. A., Nelson, K. C., & Jakes, P. (2006). Working with community leadership to promote wildfire preparedness. The public and wildland fire management: Social science findings for managers. General Technical Report NRS- 1. Newtown Square, PA: USDA, pp. 137–149.

Martin, I. M., Bender, H., & Raish, C. (2007). What motivates individuals to protect themselves from risk: The case of wildland fires. Risk Analysis, 27(4), 887–900.

McCaffrey, S. (2004). Thinking of wildfire as a natural hazard. Society and Natural Resources, 17(6), 509–516. McCaffrey, S. M., Stidham, M., Toman, E., & Shindler, B. (2011). Outreach programs, peer pressure, and common

sense: What motivates homeowners to mitigate wildfire risk? Environmental Management, 48, 475–488. McCaffrey, S., Toman, E., Stidham, M., & Shindler, B. (2013). Social science research related to wildfire management:

An overview of recent findings and future research needs. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 22(1), 15–24. McDaniel, J. (2014). Building trust, establishing credibility, and communicating fire issues with the public. Fire Science

Digest, 17, 1–12. Paveglio, T., Carroll, M. S., Absher, J. D., & Norton, T. (2009). Just blowing smoke? Residents’ social construction of

communication about wildfire. Environmental Communication, 3(1), 76–94. Paveglio, T., Norton, T., & Carroll, M. S. (2011). Fanning the flames? Media coverage during wildfire events and its

relation to broader societal understandings of the hazard. Human Ecology Review, 18(1), 41–52. Rogers, P., Burnside-Lawry, J., Dragisic, J., & Mills, C. (2016). Collaboration and communication: Building a research

agenda and way of working towards community disaster resilience. Disaster Prevention and Management, 25(1), 75–90.

Shindler, B. (2000). Landscape-level management: It’s all about context. Journal of Forestry, 98(12), 10–14. Shindler, B., & Gordon, R. (2005). A practical guide to citizen-agency partnerships: Public outreach strategies for fire and

fuel management. Corvallis, OR: Department of Forest Resources, College of Forestry, Oregon State University. Shindler, B., Gordon, R., McCaffrey, S., & Toman, E. (2011). Collaborating for healthy forests and communities: A guide

for building partnerships among diverse interests. Corvallis, OR: Department of Forest Ecosystems & Society, College of Forestry, Oregon State University.

Shindler, B., & Neburka, J. (1997). Public participation in forest planning: Eight attributes to success. Journal of Forestry, 95(1), 17–19.

Shindler, B., & Toman, E. (2003). Fuel reduction strategies in forest communities: A longitudinal analysis of public support. Journal of Forestry, 101(6), 8–15.

Shindler, B., Toman, E., & McCaffrey, S. (2009). Public perspectives of fire, fuels and the forest service in the great lakes region: A survey of citizen-agency communication and trust. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 18(2), 157–164.

St. Denis, L. A., Hughes, A. L., & Palen, L. (2012). Trial by fire: The deployment of trusted digital volunteers in the 2011 shadow lake fire. Proceedings of the 9th International ISCRAM Conference, pp. 1–10.

Steelman, T. A. (2008). Addressing the mitigation paradox at the community level. In W. Martin, C. Raish, & B. Kent (Eds.), Wildfire risk: Human perceptions and management implications (pp. 64–80). Washington, DC: Earthscan.

Stidham, M., Toman, E., McCaffrey, S., & Shindler, B. (2011). Improving an inherently stressful situation: The role of communication during wildfire evacuations. Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire, pp. 96–103.

Sutton, J., Palen, L., & Shklovski, I. (2008, May). Backchannels on the front lines: Emergent uses of social media in the 2007 Southern California wildfires. Proceedings of the 5th International ISCRAM Conference, Washington, DC, pp. 624–632.

Taylor, J. G., Gillette, S. C., Hodgson, R. W., Downing, J. L., Burns, M. R., Chavez, D. J., & Hogan, J. T. (2007). Informing the network: Improving communication with interface communities during wildland fire. Human Ecology Review, 14(2), 198–211.

Tierney, K. (2009). Disaster response: Research findings and their implications for resilience measures (6). CARRI Research Report.

Toman, E., Shindler, B., & Brunson, M. (2006). Fire and fuel management communication strategies: Citizen evalu- ations of agency outreach activities. Society and Natural Resources, 19(4), 321–336.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 175

Toman, E., Shindler, B., & Olsen, C. (2008). Communication strategies for postfire planning: Lessons learned from forest communities. Fire Social Science Research from the Pacific Southwest Research Station: Studies Supported by National Fire Plan Funds, p. 165.

Toman, E., Stidham, M., Shindler, B., & McCaffrey, S. (2011). Reducing fuels in the wildland–urban interface: Community perceptions of agency fuels treatments. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 20(3), 340–349.

US Congress. (2003). Healthy Forests Restoration Act. PL 108–148. Retrieved from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/ cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid1⁄4f:h1904enr.txt.pdf

USDA, USDI. (2004). The healthy forests initiative and healthy forests restoration act: Interim field guide. USDA Forest Service, Report FS-799, Washington, DC.

Veil, S. R., Buehner, T., & Palenchar, M. J. (2011). A work-in-process literature review: Incorporating social media in risk and crisis communication. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 19(2), 110–122.

Wells, G. (2009). Community wildfire protection plans: Reducing wildfire hazards in the wildland urban interface. Fire Science Digest, 4, 1–12.

Williamson, M. A. (2007). Factors in United States forest service district rangers’ decision to manage a fire for resource benefit. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 16(6), 755–762.

Wilson, R. S., Ascher, T. J., & Toman, E. (2012). The importance of framing for communicating risk and managing forest health. Journal of Forestry, 110(6), 337–341.

Winter, G., Vogt, C. A., & McCaffrey, S. (2004). Examining social trust in fuels management strategies. Journal of Forestry, 102(6), 8–15.

Winter, G., Vogt, C., & McCaffrey, S. (2006). Residents warming up to fuels management: homeowners’ acceptance of wildfire and fuels management in the wildland-urban interface. The public and wildland fire management: social science findings for managers. Gen Tech Rep NRS-1. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, pp. 19–32.

Wright, V. (2007). Communication barriers to applying federal research in support of land management in the United States. Proceedings: International Conference on Transfer of Forest Science Knowledge and Technology, pp. 55–62.

Wynsma, B. (2013). U.S. forest service collaboration process: Solution or sham? Evergreen Magazine. Retrieved from http://evergreenmagazine.com/web/U_S_Forest_Service_Collaboration_Process_Solution_or_Sham_-v3.html

Zaksek, M., & Arvai, J. L. (2004). Toward improved communication about wildland fire: Mental models research to identify information for natural resource management. Risk Analysis, 24(6), 1503–1514.

176 L. REMENICK