Fire is a naturally-occurring disruptive ecological force that is an essential part of certain ecosystems, and has historically been a tool used by indigenous fire stewards to maintain the health of the land. In the past century, fire has been severely suppressed throughout many areas of the Western United States as Western colonization and the suppression of native traditional ecological knowledge took place, causing a severe decline in ecosystem health and the accumulation of flammable vegetation, which has more recently contributed towards a frequency of catastrophic, high-intensity wildfires. Current fire management challenges include balancing social and ecological perspectives. In Colorado and other areas of the country, community wildfire protection plans (CWPP) are evolving as a means to involve a variety of community stakeholders in fire management decisions. Using Colorado CWPP boundaries as a social management unit and endangered species ranges as an ecological management unit, I analyzed the spatial overlap of these different factors. Since each CWPP has its own fire management policies, I drew implications from the results for which important factors different CWPPs should consider.

The majority of trust research has focused on the benefits trust can have for individual actors, institutions, and organizations. This “optimistic bias” is particularly evident in work focused on institutional trust, where concepts such as procedural justice, shared values, and moral responsibility have gained prominence. But trust in institutions may not be exclusively good. We reveal implications for the “dark side” of institutional trust by reviewing relevant theories and empirical research that can contribute to a more holistic understanding. We frame our discussion by suggesting there may be a “Goldilocks principle” of institutional trust, where trust that is too low (typically the focus) or too high (not usually considered by trust researchers) may be problematic. The chapter focuses on the issue of too-high trust and processes through which such too-high trust might emerge. Specifically, excessive trust might result from external, internal, and intersecting external-internal processes. External processes refer to the actions institutions take that affect public trust, while internal processes refer to intrapersonal factors affecting a trustor’s level of trust. We describe how the beneficial psychological and behavioral outcomes of trust can be mitigated or circumvented through these processes and highlight the implications of a “darkest” side of trust when they intersect. We draw upon research on organizations and legal, governmental, and political systems to demonstrate the dark side of trust in different contexts. The conclusion outlines directions for future research and encourages researchers to consider the ethical nuances of studying how to increase institutional trust.