Yung Laurie, Gray Benjamin J, Wyborn Carina, Miller Brett Alan, Williams Daniel R, Essen Maureen
Department of Society and Conservation, W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation, Missoula, MT 59812 USA.
USDA Forest Service, Willows, CA 95988 USA.
Fire Ecol. 2022;18(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s42408-022-00155-2. Epub 2022 Dec 13.
Wildfire mitigation is becoming increasingly urgent, but despite the availability of mitigation tools, such as prescribed fire, managed wildfire, and mechanical thinning, the USA has been unable to scale up mitigation. Limited agency capacity, inability to work across jurisdictions, lack of public support, and procedural delays have all been cited as barriers to mitigation. But in the context of limited resources and increasing urgency, how should agencies prioritize investments to address these barriers?
To better understand different investments for scaling up mitigation, we examined how the wildfire problem is framed, building on existing social science demonstrating that agency approaches depend in part on how problems are framed. Using national-level policy documents and in-depth interviews, we found three ways of framing the barriers to scaling up mitigation, each emphasizing certain aspects of the problem and prioritizing different solutions or investments. The first framing, the , focused on inadequate resources, cumbersome procedural requirements, delays due to litigation, and lack of public support. The solutions-to increase funding, streamline NEPA, limit litigation, and educate the public-suggest that more resources and fewer restrictions will enable agencies to scale up mitigation. The second framing, , focused on the ways that organizational structure and capacity constrain the development of effective cross-boundary collaboration. Here solutions prioritized organizational changes and capacity building to enable agencies to navigate different missions and build trust in order to develop shared priorities. The third framing, , focused on lack of public support for mitigation, the need for meaningful public engagement and multi-stakeholder collaboration, and investments to build support to scale up mitigation.
This analysis reveals that investing in collaborative capacity to advance agency-agency partnerships and public engagement might not slow down mitigation, but rather enable agencies to "go slow to go fast" by building the support and mechanisms necessary to increase the pace and scale of mitigation work. Reframing the wildfire problem through a careful analysis of competing frames and the underlying assumptions that privilege particular solutions can reveal a broader suite of solutions that address the range of key barriers.
减轻野火危害变得越来越紧迫,然而尽管有诸如规定火烧、管控野火和机械疏伐等减轻危害的手段,美国仍未能扩大减轻危害的规模。有限的机构能力、跨辖区合作的无能、缺乏公众支持以及程序延误都被认为是减轻危害的障碍。但在资源有限且紧迫性不断增加的背景下,各机构应如何优先进行投资以克服这些障碍呢?
为了更好地理解扩大减轻危害规模的不同投资方式,我们基于现有的社会科学研究,考察了野火问题是如何被构建的,现有社会科学研究表明机构的方法部分取决于问题的构建方式。通过使用国家级政策文件和深入访谈,我们发现了三种构建扩大减轻危害规模障碍的方式,每种方式都强调了问题的某些方面,并优先考虑不同的解决方案或投资。第一种构建方式,即“资源受限型”,关注资源不足、繁琐的程序要求、诉讼导致的延误以及缺乏公众支持。其解决方案——增加资金、简化《国家环境政策法》程序、限制诉讼以及教育公众——表明更多资源和更少限制将使各机构能够扩大减轻危害的规模。第二种构建方式,即“组织结构与能力型”,关注组织结构和能力如何限制有效的跨边界合作的发展。这里的解决方案优先考虑组织变革和能力建设,以使各机构能够应对不同的任务并建立信任,从而制定共同的优先事项。第三种构建方式,即“公众支持型”,关注缺乏公众对减轻危害的支持、有意义的公众参与和多利益相关方合作的必要性,以及为扩大减轻危害规模而建立支持的投资。
该分析表明,投资于协作能力以推进机构间伙伴关系和公众参与,可能不会减缓减轻危害的进程,反而能使各机构通过建立加快减轻危害工作的速度和规模所需的支持和机制来“慢工出细活”。通过仔细分析相互竞争的框架以及偏袒特定解决方案的潜在假设来重新构建野火问题,可能会揭示出一套更广泛的解决方案,以应对一系列关键障碍。