IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envman/v50y2012i4d10.1007_s00267-012-9914-6.html

Stakeholder Understandings of Wildfire Mitigation: A Case of Shared and Contested Meanings

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph G. Champ

    (Colorado State University, Department of Journalism and Technical Communication)

  • Jeffrey J. Brooks

    (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Conservation Planning and Policy)

  • Daniel R. Williams

    (United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station)

Abstract

This article identifies and compares meanings of wildfire risk mitigation for stakeholders in the Front Range of Colorado, USA. We examine the case of a collaborative partnership sponsored by government agencies and directed to decrease hazardous fuels in interface areas. Data were collected by way of key informant interviews and focus groups. The analysis is guided by the Circuit of Culture model in communication research. We found both shared and differing meanings between members of this partnership (the “producers”) and other stakeholders not formally in the partnership (the “consumers”). We conclude that those promoting the partnership’s project to mitigate risk are primarily aligned with a discourse of scientific management. Stakeholders outside the partnership follow a discourse of community. We argue that failure to recognize and account for differences in the way risk mitigation is framed and related power dynamics could hamper the communicational efforts of the collaborative partnership and impact goals for fuels reduction. We recommend ways that both groups can capitalize on shared meanings and how agency managers and decision makers can build better working relationships with interface communities and other external stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph G. Champ & Jeffrey J. Brooks & Daniel R. Williams, 2012. "Stakeholder Understandings of Wildfire Mitigation: A Case of Shared and Contested Meanings," Environmental Management, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 581-597, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:envman:v:50:y:2012:i:4:d:10.1007_s00267-012-9914-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s00267-012-9914-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00267-012-9914-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00267-012-9914-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envman:v:50:y:2012:i:4:d:10.1007_s00267-012-9914-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.