Geology topics

Lilia C. Falk

Publications and source records attributed to Lilia C. Falk.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2022

Living with wildfire in Log Hill Mesa, Ouray County, Colorado: 2017 data report and a comparison to 2011 and 2012 data

Over the last decade, a team of researchers and practitioners, referred to as the Wildfire Research Team (WiRē1 Team), has worked with wildfire practitioners seeking to create communities that are adapted to wildfire through an evidenced-based approach. The West Region Wildfire Council (WRWC) has been an integral partner amongst the WiRē Team throughout this time. Together, the WiRē Team has developed a systematic data collection and integration approach (the WiRē approach) that informs local wildfire risk education efforts and allows for monitoring of community adaptation over time. Through this approach, we collect and analyze locally relevant wildfire risk and social science data to enhance the effectiveness of local wildfire risk mitigation efforts. A unique aspect of this report is that the data collection effort was replicated. The results of the 2011/2012 data collection effort are summarized in Meldrum et. al. (2013). In this report, the results of the 2017 data collection effort are summarized first, followed by a brief comparison of the 2017 results to the 2011/2012 data. This comparison is offered to provide context to the 2017 data; in-depth investigation of change over time is beyond the scope of this report.

Colorado↗

USGS2021

Would you like to know more? The effect of personalized wildfire risk information and social comparisons on information-seeking behavior in the wildland–urban interface

Private landowners are important actors in landscape-level wildfire risk management. Accordingly, wildfire programs and policy encourage wildland–urban interface homeowners to engage with local organizations to properly mitigate wildfire risk on their parcels. We investigate whether parcel-level wildfire risk assessment data, commonly used to inform community-level planning and resource allocation, can be used to “nudge” homeowners to engage further with a regional wildfire organization. We sent 4564 households in western Colorado a letter that included varying combinations of risk information about their community, their parcels, and their neighbors’ parcels, and we measured follow-up visits to a personalized “Web site”. We find that the effect of providing parcel-specific information depends on baseline conditions: Informing homeowners about their property’s wildfire risk increases information-seeking among homeowners of the highest-risk parcels by about 5 percentage points and reduces information-seeking among homeowners of lower-risk parcels by about 6 percentage points. Parcel-specific information also increases the overall response in the lowest risk communities by more than 10 percentage points. Further, we find evidence of a 6-percentage point increase in response rate associated with receiving a social comparison treatment that signals neighboring properties as being either low or moderate risk on average. These results, especially considered against the 13 percent overall average response rate, offer causal evidence that providing parcel-specific wildfire risk information can influence behavior. As such, we demonstrate the effectiveness of simple outreach in engaging wildland–urban interface homeowners with wildfire risk professionals in ways that leverage existing data.

Natural Hazards↗

USGS2021

Putting people first: Using social science to reduce risk

Wildland-urban interface residents, who occupy the areas where wildlands meet and mix with human development, are both contributors to and recipients of the disastrous effects of wildland fires. They contribute through fire starts, flammable homes, unmitigated properties, opposition to mitigation on nearby public lands, and land use planning efforts. We argue that successful, sustainable wildland fire solutions are only possible if the WUI residents are engaged. In this article, we describe an evidence-based quantitative social science model to illustrate how to put people at the center of wildland fire solutions. Our hope is to spur greater use of social science in evidence-based wildland fire programs.

Wildfire Magazine↗

USGS2020

Developing behavioral and evidence-based programs for wildfire risk mitigation

The actions of residents in the wildland–urban interface can influence the private and social costs of wildfire. Wildfire programs that encourage residents to take action are often delivered without evidence of effects on behavior. Research from the field of behavioral science shows that simple, often low-cost changes to program design and delivery can influence socially desirable behaviors. In this research report, we highlight how behavioral science and experimental design may advance efforts to increase wildfire risk mitigation on private property. We offer an example in which we tested changes in outreach messaging on property owners’ interest in wildfire risk information. In partnership with a regional wildfire organization, we mailed 4564 letters directing property owners to visit personalized wildfire risk webpages. By tracking visitation, we observed that 590 letter recipients (12%) sought information about their wildfire risk and response varied by community. This research–practice collaboration has three benefits: innovation in outreach, evidence of innovation through experimental design, and real impacts on interest in wildfire mitigation among property owners. Future collaborations may inform behavioral and evidence-based programs to better serve residents and the public interest as the risks from wildfires are projected to grow.

Colorado↗

USGS2020

Do actions speak louder than words? Comparing the effect of risk aversion on objective and self-reported mitigation measures

Risky behaviors are of public concern when they are associated with negative externalities. Public programs and policy seek to incentivize less risky behaviors in an effort to reduce or eliminate such social costs. It is in this context that the relationship between risk aversion and risky behaviors is of particular interest. However, the literature on risk aversion and risky behaviors has largely relied on self-reported behaviors. Whether intentional or unintentional, self-reported behaviors may differ from objective measures of behavior. Because policies and programs are often based on objective measures of behavior, rather than self-reports, we ask the question of whether observed relationships between risk preferences and self-reported behaviors extend to objective measures of behavior.

Journal of Environmental Behavior and Organization↗

USGS2019

Interactions between resident risk perceptions and wildfire risk mitigation: Evidence from simultaneous equations modeling

Fire science emphasizes that mitigation actions on residential property, including structural hardening and maintaining defensible space, can reduce the risk of wildfire at a home. Accordingly, a rich body of social science literature investigates the determinants of wildfire risk mitigation behaviors of residents living in fire-prone areas. Here, we investigate relationships among wildfire hazards, residents’ risk perceptions, and conditions associated with mitigation actions using a combination of simulated wildfire conditions, household survey responses, and professionally assessed parcel characteristic data. We estimate a simultaneous model of these data that accounts for potential direct feedbacks between risk perceptions and parcel-level conditions. We also compare the use of self-reported versus assessed parcel-level data for estimating these relationships. Our analysis relies on paired survey and assessment data for approximately 2000 homes in western Colorado. Our simultaneous model demonstrates dual-directional interactions between risk perceptions and conditions associated with mitigation actions, with important implications for inference from simpler approaches. In addition to improving general understanding of decision-making about risk and natural hazards, our findings can support the effectiveness of publicly supported programs intended to encourage mitigation to reduce society’s overall wildfire risk.

Fire↗

USGS2018

Responding to risky neighbors: Testing for spatial spillover effects for defensible space in a fire-prone WUI community

Often, factors that determine the risk of an environmental hazard occur at landscape scales, and risk mitigation requires action by multiple private property owners. How property owners respond to risk mitigation on neighboring lands depends on whether mitigation actions are strategic complements or strategic substitutes. We test for these neighbor interactions with a case study on wildfire risk mitigation on private properties. We use two measures of wildfire risk mitigation—an assessment by a wildfire professional and a self-assessment by homeowners. Taken together, the two assessments provide the first empirical explanation for strategic complements in wildfire risk mitigation and a more complete picture of how homeowners respond to this landscape-scale risk. We find homeowners that mitigate risk on their land are more likely to have neighbors that do the same, and homeowners that fail to mitigate risk are more likely to have neighbors that fail to do so as well. Due to spatial spillovers, motivating a few key residents to take action could reduce risk across the landscape.

Colorado↗

USGS2018

Wildland–urban interface residents’ relationships with wildfire: Variation within and across communities

Social science offers rich descriptions of relationships between wildland–urban interface residents and wildfire, but syntheses across different contexts might gloss over important differences. We investigate the potential extent of such differences using data collected consistently in sixty-eight Colorado communities and hierarchical modeling. We find substantial variation across responses for all considered measures, much of which occurs at the community-level. Our results show that many aspects of relationships with wildfire meaningfully differ both within and across communities. Our analysis suggests that some wildfire social science results will be relatively consistent across communities, whereas others will not, and this study contributes evidence to broader efforts for understanding which is which. As such, it provides important guidance for transferring the lessons of wildfire social science studies across contexts, and for practitioners who seek to understand the breadth of viewpoints within the communities with which they work.

Colorado↗