Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: public policy
Description
Increasingly, wildfires are threatening communities, forcing evacuations, damaging property, and causing loss of life. This is in part due to a century of wildfire policy and an influx of people moving to the wildland urban interface (WUI). National programs have identified and promoted effective wildfire mitigation actions to reduce wildfire risk; yet, many homeowners do not perform these actions. Based on previous literature and using the theory of planned behavior (TPB), this study proposes an integrated wildfire mitigation behavioral model to assess and identify the factors that influence homeowners’ wildfire mitigation behaviors. Specifically, the study tests the validity of the theory of planned behavior as a foundational model in exploring wildfire mitigation behaviors, develops and empirically tests a wildfire mitigation behavioral model, and explores the role of homeowner associations (HOA) on wildfire mitigation behaviors. Structural equation modeling was used on data collected from homeowners with property in the WUI in Prescott, Arizona. Results suggest TPB provides an acceptable model in describing homeowner wildfire mitigation behavior. For HOA residents, attitudes toward wildfire mitigation behaviors play an important role in predicting intentions to perform these behaviors. Additionally, perceived constraints directly influenced actual mitigation actions. For non-HOA residents, subjective norms influenced intentions to mitigate. Implications for research and local wildfire mitigation programs and policy are discussed.
ContributorsSteffey, Eric Clifford (Author) / Budruk, Megha (Thesis advisor) / Vogt, Christine (Committee member) / Virden, Randy (Committee member) / Larson, Kelli (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
For more than 100 years, the Unite States National Park Service (NPS) has been guided by a mandate to preserve parks and their resources for the enjoyment of present and future generations. But all parks are subject to conditions that may frustrate preservation efforts. Climate change is melting the glaciers. Rising seas are sweeping away protected shorelines. Development projects, accompanied by air, water, light, and noise pollution, edge closer to parks and fragment habitats. The number of visitors and vested interests are swelling and diversifying. Resources for preservation, such as funds and staff, seem to be continuously shrinking, at least relative to demand.
Still, the NPS remains committed to the preservation of our natural and cultural heritage. Yet the practice of that promise is evolving, slowly and iteratively, but detectably. Through explorations of legal and scholarly literature, as well as interviews across the government, non-profit, and academic sectors, I’ve tracked the evolution of preservation in parks. How is preservation shifting to address socio-ecological change? How has preservation evolved before? How should the NPS preserve parks moving forward?
The practice of preservation has come to rely on science, including partnerships with academic researchers, as well as inventory and monitoring programs. That shift has in part been guided by goals that have also become more informed by science, like ecological integrity. While some interviewees see science as a solution to the NPS’s challenges, others wonder how applying science can get “gnarly,” due to uncertainty, lack of clear policies, and the diversity of parks and resources. “Gnarly” questions stem in part from the complexity of the NPS as a socio-ecological system, as well as from disputed, normative concepts that underpin the broader philosophy of preservation, including naturalness. What’s natural in the context of pervasive anthropogenic change? Further, I describe how parks hold deep, sometimes conflicting, cultural and symbolic significance for their local and historical communities and for our nation. Understanding and considering those values is part of the gnarly task park managers face in their mission to preserve parks. I explain why this type of conceptual and values-based uncertainty cannot be reduced through science.
Still, the NPS remains committed to the preservation of our natural and cultural heritage. Yet the practice of that promise is evolving, slowly and iteratively, but detectably. Through explorations of legal and scholarly literature, as well as interviews across the government, non-profit, and academic sectors, I’ve tracked the evolution of preservation in parks. How is preservation shifting to address socio-ecological change? How has preservation evolved before? How should the NPS preserve parks moving forward?
The practice of preservation has come to rely on science, including partnerships with academic researchers, as well as inventory and monitoring programs. That shift has in part been guided by goals that have also become more informed by science, like ecological integrity. While some interviewees see science as a solution to the NPS’s challenges, others wonder how applying science can get “gnarly,” due to uncertainty, lack of clear policies, and the diversity of parks and resources. “Gnarly” questions stem in part from the complexity of the NPS as a socio-ecological system, as well as from disputed, normative concepts that underpin the broader philosophy of preservation, including naturalness. What’s natural in the context of pervasive anthropogenic change? Further, I describe how parks hold deep, sometimes conflicting, cultural and symbolic significance for their local and historical communities and for our nation. Understanding and considering those values is part of the gnarly task park managers face in their mission to preserve parks. I explain why this type of conceptual and values-based uncertainty cannot be reduced through science.
ContributorsSullivan Govani, Michelle (Author) / Minteer, Ben A (Thesis advisor) / Budruk, Megha (Committee member) / Sarewitz, Daniel (Committee member) / Theuer, Jason (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019