Paton Wildfire Hazards, Risks, and Disasters

1. Auflage 2014
ISBN: 978-0-12-409601-1
Verlag: Elsevier Science & Techn.
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 284 Seiten

More than 90% of wildfires are caused by human activity, but other causes include lighting, drought, wind and changing weather conditions, underground coal fires, and even volcanic activity. Wildfire Hazards, Risks, and Disasters, one of nine volumes in the Elsevier Hazards and Disasters series, provides a close and detailed examination of wildfires and measures for more thorough and accurate monitoring, prediction, preparedness, and prevention. It takes a geo-scientific and environmental approach to the topic while also discussing the impacts of human-induced causes such as deforestation, debris burning and arson-underscoring the multi-disciplinary nature of the topic. It presents several international case studies that discuss the historical, social, cultural and ecological aspects of wildfire risk management in countries with a long history of dealing with this hazard (e.g., USA, Australia) and in countries (e.g., Taiwan) where wildfire hazards represent a new and growing threat to the social and ecological landscape. - Puts the contributions of environmental scientists, social scientists, climatologists, and geoscientists at your fingertips - Arms you with the latest research on causality, social and societal impacts, economic impacts, and the multi-dimensional nature of wildfire mitigation, preparedness, and recovery - Features a broad range of tables, figures, diagrams, illustrations, and photographs to aid in the retention of key concepts - Discusses steps for prevention and mitigation of wildfires, one of the most expensive and complex geo-hazards in the world.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Paton, Douglas

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Front
Cover;1
2;Hazards and Disasters Series Wildfire Hazards,
Risks, and Disasters;4
3;Copyright;5
4;Contents;6
5;Contributors;10
6;Editorial
Foreword;12
7;Chapter 1 - Wildfires: International Perspectives on Their Social–Ecological Implications;16
7.1;1.1 INTRODUCTION;16
7.2;1.2 CHANGES IN THE WILDFIRE HAZARD SCAPE;17
7.3;1.3 THE AMERICAS;19
7.4;1.4 EUROPE;21
7.5;1.5 AUSTRALASIA;22
7.6;1.6 INDIA;25
7.7;1.7 RUSSIA;25
7.8;1.8 WILDFIRE DANGER RATING AND WARNINGS;26
7.9;1.9 RESTORATION;26
7.10;1.10 DEVELOPING A SOCIAL–ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE;27
7.11;REFERENCES;29
8;Chapter 2 - Social Science Findings in the United States;30
8.1;2.1 INTRODUCTION;30
8.2;2.2 REVIEW OF RELEVANT RESEARCH FINDINGS;33
8.3;2.3 PREFIRE SOCIAL DYNAMICS;34
8.4;2.4 DURING AND POSTFIRE SOCIAL DYNAMICS;41
8.5;2.5 GEOGRAPHIC AND SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES;44
8.6;2.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS;45
8.7;REFERENCES;47
9;Chapter 3 - Wildfire: A Canadian Perspective;50
9.1;3.1 INTRODUCTION;50
9.2;3.2 WILDFIRE CAUSES AND IMPACTS;57
9.3;3.3 WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT;62
9.4;3.4 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION AND COMMUNITY RECOVERY;67
9.5;3.5 CONCLUSIONS;68
9.6;ACKNOWLEDGMENTS;68
9.7;REFERENCES;68
10;Chapter 4 - Current Wildfire Risk Status and Forecast in Chile: Progress and Future Challenges;74
10.1;4.1 INTRODUCTION;74
10.2;4.2 INITIAL REFERENCES TO FIRE;77
10.3;4.3 WILDFIRE RISK INDEX DESIGNED FOR CHILE;80
10.4;4.4 CONCLUSION;89
10.5;REFERENCES;89
11;Chapter 5 - Forest Fires in Europe: Facts and Challenges;92
11.1;5.1 INTRODUCTION;92
11.2;5.2 FIRE HISTORY: THE EVOLUTION OF FIRE USE IN EUROPE THROUGH PREHISTORY AND HISTORY;93
11.3;5.3 FOREST FIRE CURRENT SITUATION;94
11.4;5.4 FROM FOREST FIRE SUPPRESSION TOWARD FOREST FIRE RISK MANAGEMENT;100
11.5;5.5 THE ROLE OF EUROPEAN UNION POLICIES IN FOREST FIRE MANAGEMENT;106
11.6;5.6 CONCLUSION;107
11.7;REFERENCES;108
12;Chapter 6 - Wildfires: An Australian Perspective;116
12.1;6.1 INTRODUCTION: EXTENT AND IMPACT OF AUSTRALIAN WILDFIRES;116
12.2;6.2 AUSTRALIA'S WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT;119
12.3;6.3 FRAMEWORK: LEGISLATION AND KEY INSTITUTIONS;124
12.4;6.4 BUILDING CAPACITY AND CAPABILITY: INQUIRIES, RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING;126
12.5;6.5 CONCLUSION: WAYS FORWARD;132
12.6;REFERENCES;134
13;Chapter 7 - Fostering Community Participation to Wildfire: Experiences from Indonesia;138
13.1;7.1 INTRODUCTION;138
13.2;7.2 WILDFIRE AND WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT;140
13.3;7.3 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND WILDFIRE IN SOUTH SUMATRA AND EAST KALIMANTAN;147
13.4;7.4 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT;154
13.5;REFERENCES;155
14;Chapter 8 - Discourse on Taiwanese Forest Fires;160
14.1;8.1 INTRODUCTION;160
14.2;8.2 CONCLUSION;179
14.3;REFERENCES;180
15;Chapter 9 - Wildfires in India: Tools and Hazards;182
15.1;9.1 INTRODUCTION;182
15.2;9.2 FIRE HISTORY AND REGIMES IN INDIA;183
15.3;9.3 FIRE AND ECOLOGY;185
15.4;9.4 FIRE AS TOOL;186
15.5;9.5 FIRE AS A HAZARD;193
15.6;9.6 OUTLOOK;195
15.7;REFERENCES;196
16;Chapter 10 - System of Wildfires Monitoring in Russia;202
16.1;10.1 INTRODUCTION;203
16.2;10.2 NATURAL CONDITIONS AND FORESTS IN RUSSIA;204
16.3;10.3 FIRE HISTORY AND CURRENT STATISTICS;207
16.4;10.4 FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS OF WILDFIRE PREVENTING AND FIGHTING;211
16.5;10.5 TERRITORY ZONING ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF FIRE MONITORING;212
16.6;10.6 NATURAL FIRE DANGER AND ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACT;215
16.7;ACKNOWLEDGMENTS;218
16.8;REFERENCES;218
17;Chapter 11 - Wildland Fire Danger Rating and Early Warning Systems;222
17.1;11.1 INTRODUCTION;222
17.2;11.2 FIRE DANGER RATING SYSTEMS;224
17.3;11.3 FIRE EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS;231
17.4;11.4 FORECASTING FIRE DANGER FOR EARLY WARNING;236
17.5;11.5 FIRE DANGER AND EARLY WARNING APPLICATIONS;237
17.6;11.6 FUTURE FIRE DANGER AND EARLY WARNING;238
17.7;ACKNOWLEDGMENTS;239
17.8;REFERENCES;239
18;Chapter 12 - Postfire Ecosystem Restoration;244
18.1;12.1 INTRODUCTION;244
18.2;12.2 DO WE NEED TO MANAGE ECOSYSTEM RECOVERY AFTER WILDFIRES?;246
18.3;12.3 THE CASE OF MEGAFIRES;251
18.4;12.4 A MEDITERRANEAN-BASIN APPROACH;254
18.5;12.5 CONCLUSION;256
18.6;ACKNOWLEDGMENTS;256
18.7;REFERENCES;256
19;Chapter 13 - Ensuring That We Can See the Wood and the Trees: Growing the Capacity for Ecological wildfire Risk Management;262
19.1;13.1 INTRODUCTION;262
19.2;13.2 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES;265
19.3;13.3 LESSONS;268
19.4;13.4 PATHWAYS FORWARD;274
19.5;REFERENCES;276
20;Index;278

Leseproben

Chapter 2 Social Science Findings in the United States
Sarah McCaffrey     Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Evanston, IL, USA Eric Toman     School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA Melanie Stidham     School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA Bruce Shindler     Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA Abstract
The rising number of acres burned annually and growing number of people living in or adjacent to fire-prone areas in the United States make wildfire management an increasingly complex and challenging problem. Given the prominence of social issues in shaping the current challenges and determining paths forward, it will be important to have an accurate understanding of social dynamics. After providing a brief contextual background of fire management in the United States, this chapter focuses on a review of the key findings from social science research related to how the public views fire management in the United States. Primary topics discussed are public acceptance of fuels treatments on public lands, homeowner mitigation activities, and social dynamics during and after a fire. The goal of the chapter is to (1) provide fire managers and other interested stakeholders with an accurate understanding of what shapes public response to fire management before, during, and after fires; (2) provide a context for future research; and (3) inform future efforts to foster fire-adapted communities where people are aware of the fire risk and have taken appropriate action to reduce that risk and increase resilience to wildfire. Keywords
Fire-adapted community; Mitigation; Participative management; Resilience; Social dynamics 2.1. Introduction
Wildland fire management in the United States is an increasingly complex and challenging problem. With a rising number of acres burned annually and a growing number of people living in or adjacent to fire-prone areas, much is at stake. Creating fire-adapted communities, where there is an awareness of the wildfire risk and actions have been taken to mitigate that risk and increase resilience, will require the active participation of residents, community leaders, and a range of governmental and nongovernmental organizations. Given the prominence of social issues in shaping the current challenges and in determining paths forward, it will be important to have an accurate understanding of social dynamics. This chapter will first provide a brief contextual background of fire management in the United States. It will then provide a review of the key findings from the social science literature related to fire adapted communities, including acceptance of mitigation action on public lands, homeowner mitigation activities, and social dynamics during and after a fire. Our intent is to provide fire managers and other interested stakeholders with an accurate understanding of what shapes public response to fire management throughout the fire management cycle, inform efforts to foster fire adapted communities, and provide a context for future research. 2.1.1. Historical Context
Underlying the current fire management challenge in the United States is a fire policy that for most of the twentieth century has focused on fire control or full suppression. Prior to this focus, studies have shown that Native Americans were active resource managers, who used fire for a variety of reasons, including to stimulate production of desired plant species, decrease disease and pests, and facilitate game hunting (Huntsinger and McCaffrey, 1995; Lewis, 1993). Early-Euro-American settlers also extensively used fire to manage resources, but as permanent settlements were established, they also began to organize to suppress fires that threatened private resources (Pyne, 1997). Fire suppression first took hold as a formal policy at the turn of the twentieth century, in congruence with the advent of the Progressive Era. Growing public concern over mismanagement and potential scarcity of natural resources led to calls for greater government oversight and management of the nation's natural resources to maximize present and future use. This movement led to the creation of the Forest Reserve Acts of 1891 and 1897, which withdrew large tracts of timber from settlement. In 1897, the Bureau of Forestry was created to manage the reserved areas, and, in 1905, the Bureau was transferred to the Department of Agriculture and became the United States Forest Service (Hays, 1959). From its inception, the agency was staffed by professional foresters whose training was based on methods imported from Europe where forests had been actively managed for centuries and fire suppression was an integral part of management practices (Behan, 1975; Pyne, 1997). In 1910, a series of massive fires in the Northern Rockies consolidated the emphasis on fire suppression. Over subsequent decades, fire control efforts expanded with full fire suppression finally achieved with the arrival of World War II. The war meant that forest products were increasingly valuable and also raised fears of Japanese incendiary bombs setting fire to the West Coast. Putting out all fires now became a patriotic duty (slogans of the time included “Careless Matches Aid the Axis” and “Another Enemy to Conquer, Forest Fires”), and advertising agencies were enlisted to develop fire prevention ad campaigns. This culminated in the creation of Smokey Bear in 1945 (Pyne, 1997). Changes in wildfire policy began in the 1970s with the growing recognition of the technological limits to full suppression and of the important ecological role that fire plays in many forest ecosystems (Pyne, 1997; Davis, 2001). In many ecosystems, removing fire had affected the type, density, diversity, and pattern of vegetation, generally in a way that added to the fire hazard, particularly in terms of fuel load buildup. The policy shift was also due in part to an increase in the fire management responsibilities of federal agencies other than the Forest Service, which introduced other agency viewpoints into the mix. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) entered into fire control in a significant manner in the 1950s when it began to try to control fires on its Alaska lands, which made up half of all federal lands (Pyne, 1997). The National Park Service (NPS) began experimenting with prescribed burning in the Everglades in the 1950s and in 1968 began to introduce let-burn and prescribed fire programs into its parks with the goal of restoring the ecological role of fire (USDI/USDA 1995). In 1977, the Forest Service formally changed its fire policy from fire control to fire management and prescription fires, planned or natural, became a formal part of fire management policy (Pyne, 1997). In 1988, large fires in the Yellowstone National Park focused attention of the media, political officials, and the general public on wildfire-management strategies and prompted reviews of fire policies (Davis, 2006). A 1995 revision of existing federal fire policy recognized the role of fire in ecological systems and called for implementation of fuel reduction programs to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic fire events (Stephens and Ruth, 2005). A series of large wildfires in 2000 prompted additional policy revisions (Moseley, 2007). Under the suppression-centric approach, the wildfire-management authority rested almost exclusively with federal resource management agencies; however, more recent efforts have emphasized greater intergovernmental coordination in prefire preparations and during-fire management (Davis, 2001). As more nonfederal lands have been impacted by wildfires, state agencies and local fire departments have become more involved in wildfire-management issues. Although the Forest Service remains the largest wildland fire-fighting agency, today wildfire management in the United States must take into account a complicated mix of five federal agencies with fire management responsibilities (USFS, BLM, NPS, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs), state forestry agencies, and a vast network of independently operated local (county, municipal, and volunteer) fire departments. Recent policies including the National Fire Plan (2000); the Western Governor's Association 10-Year Comprehensive Plan (2001); and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (2003) reflect the shift away from a policy of complete fire suppression to one that includes a broader set of goals including restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems, reduction of wildland fuels, and providing economic assistance to rural communities (Gorte, 2003; Steelman et al., 2004). Federal and state agencies are involved in determining the resources available to mitigate risk at the local level; the federal government largely sets policy direction and provides financial resources, while state governments make organization and programmatic decisions about how to allocate those resources to mitigate fire risk (Steelman et al., 2004). Despite the development of this shift toward a broader set of policy goals than just suppression than evaluations of fire management practices suggest that, in practice, fire suppression and hazardous fuels reduction receive the most attention and resources, sometimes at the expense of restoration and community assistance (Gorte, 2003; Steelman et al., 2004;...