Incorporating Integrative Complexity into Wildland Fire ... · Incorporating Integrative Complexity into Wildland Fire Management Mike Czaja, ... White River NF (5 counties) ... Responsibility

Incorporating Integrative Complexity into Wildland Fire

Management

Mike Czaja, Ph.D.

Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship

Colorado State University

November 6, 2013

Agenda

• Introduction

• Relevant Theories

• Methods

• Results

• Conclusions and Discussion

fws.gov

nps.gov

Introduction

Mountain Pine Beetle Public Assessment

Theoretical

Conceptual Application

Technical Report

Integrative Complexity and Prescribed Fire

fs.fed.us

Introduction

Statement of the Problem

Determine respondents’ level of thought complexity toward prescribed fire and apply it to a conceptual

framework in order to assist the US Forest Service in developing prescribed fire-related policies,

management actions, and communication strategies.

sagestep.org

Introduction

blm.gov

Goals of the Study

• Apply a recently-developed measurement tool for integrative complexity to a new research scenario.

• Identify respondents’ level of complexity when thinking about prescribed fire within the context of the mountain pine beetle (MPB) in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming.

• Identify respondents’ perceptions of the MPB and examine any demographic-related differentiation in integrative complexity.

Introduction

blm.gov

Goals of the Study




Introduction

blm.gov

Goals of the Study




Introduction Research Objectives

R1: Determine if respondents’ extreme attitudes toward prescribed fire are characterized by different levels of integrative complexity than moderate attitudes.

R2: Determine if the relationship between basic beliefs about wildland fire management and attitudes toward prescribed fire are moderated by integrative complexity.

nps.gov

Introduction Research Objectives

R1: Determine if respondents’ extreme attitudes toward prescribed fire are characterized by different levels of integrative complexity than moderate attitudes.


nps.gov

Introduction Wildland Fire

• General term describing any non-structural fire that occurs in natural fuels and/or vegetation.

• Types of wildland fire: wildfire, prescribed fire, and wildland fire use:

– Wildfire: unplanned; unwanted including unauthorized human-caused fires, escaped wildland fire use events, escaped prescribed fires, others with the objective to put the fire out.

– Prescribed fire: any fire intentionally ignited by management, under an approved plan, to meet specific objectives, often fuel reduction.

– Wildland fire use: natural ignition; accomplish specific resource management objectives; pre-defined, designated areas.

“The right fire, at the place, at the right time.” (USFS)

(NWCG, 2010, 2013)

usatoday.com nps.gov

Introduction “Big Picture”

Dendroctonus ponderosae fs.fed.us

wildfiretoday.com

?

“Too complicated to yield easy management decisions.” (Joint Fire Science Program Summary, 2012)

Effects of bark-beetle caused tree mortality on wildfires: 1. Depends on research question. 2. Time since outbreak. 3. Fuel or fire characteristic of interest.

“Generalization is unwarranted.” (Hicke et al., 2012; Jenkins et al., 2013)

Introduction

Wildfires on the Landscape

• Entering a period of megafires, not seen in decades: – High combustion intensity.

– Inherently complex to manage.

– Dangerous to firefighters. (Pyne, 2010)

• Ecosystems and human populations are becoming more vulnerable.

• Described as a complex mix of physical, ecological, economic, and social developments. (Carroll et al., 2007)

National Interagency Fire Center: 10-year average (2004-2013): 64,588 fires; 6,933,732 acres

2013 (Jan-Oct): 40,724 fires; 4,107,912 acres 2012-13 Colorado Wildfire Seasons: +1,000 homes destroyed;

$858 million in insurance claims

Relevant Theories

• Managers recognize that the social sciences can support the formulation of management decisions.

• Understanding public perceptions is critical for success in communicating and implementing management plans.

• This study used cognitive hierarchy theory and integrative complexity as the theoretical foundations.

blm.gov

The impact of complex thinking on basic beliefs and attitudes toward prescribed fire and the relationship between them.

Relevant Theories

Cognitive Hierarchy Theory

• Helps explain willingness to support various natural resource management strategies.

• Examination of the concepts underlying the process of human though to action-such as values and attitudes and the relationship between them.

fs.fed.us

Values Beliefs Attitudes

(Bright & Burtz, 2006; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Homer & Kahle, 1988; Manfredo, 2008: Rokeach, 1973)

Relevant Theories

Integrative Complexity

• Measurement of how complexly people think about an issue.

• Structure of thoughts, or beliefs, rather than the content.

• Management can benefit from not only what, but how, the public thinks about complex, controversial issues.

blm.gov

Two cognitive structural variables: Differentiation: number of distinct characteristics or dimensions of a problem or issue that an individual takes into account during decision making. Integration: development of complex connections among the differentiated characteristics; related to the relative importance of perceived arguments for and against an issue.

(Bright & Barro, 2000; Carroll & Bright, 2009, 2010; Tetlock, 1989)

Relevant Theories

Integrative complexity moderation model for prescribed fire attitudes

blm.gov (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Tarrant, Bright, & Cordell, 1997)

Basic Beliefs

Integrative Complexity

Basic Beliefs* Integrative Complexity

Prescribed Fire Attitudes

a

c

b

Moderation occurs if the interaction path (path c) is significant.

Methodology

Colorado Wyoming Study areas:

Arapaho-Roosevelt NF (6 counties) White River NF (5 counties) Medicine Bow-Routt (8 counties)

fs.fed.us

Methodology

• 12-page self-administered assessment with two mailings.

• Data collected from November, 2011, through January, 2012.

• Response rates are found in the following table:

Study Location

Arapaho-

Roosevelt

Medicine Bow-

Routt

White River

Sample 1482 1482 1482

Undeliverable or

unusable survey 41 43 54

Valid survey

(Total = 783) 301 234 248

Response rate

(Overall = 18%) 21% 16% 17%

Percentage of

overall responses 38% 30% 32%

Methodology

COLUMN A List Arguments FOR and AGAINST prescribed burning in lodgepole pine forests

COLUMN B How WEAK or STRONG do you think this argument is?

Section 1: Arguments FOR prescribed burning (LIST AS MANY AS YOU CAN) Extremely

Weak

Moderately

Weak

Slightly

Weak Neutral

Slightly

Strong

Moderately

Strong

Extremely

Strong

1.__________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2.__________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3.__________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4.__________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5.__________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Section 2: Arguments AGAINST prescribed burning (LIST AS MANY AS YOU CAN)

1.__________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2.__________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3.__________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4.__________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5.__________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Integrative Complexity Scale

Differentiation Integration

(Carroll & Bright, 2009, 2010)

Methodology

Measurement of key variables:

• Questions that measured beliefs about forests, fire, fire management, and trust in the US Forest Service used a 7-point Likert scale:

1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree

• Attitudes toward prescribed fire were measured with a continuous scale.

• Integrative complexity measured using the Integrative Complexity Scale.

• Demographic questions: zip code of residence, length of time in current

residence, length of time in Colorado or Wyoming, primary residence, age, gender, education, annual household income, and stakeholder group affiliation.

Methodology

Reliability of Study Indices:

• Basic belief indices were developed by conducting a principal

component analysis to uncover a cluster of related variables (N = 783).

– Identified eight clusters, all had adequate Cronbach’s alphas >.74.

• Principal component analysis not used to develop two indices which had four or fewer belief statements in the original assessment: Cronbach’s alphas >.80.

• Of these ten indices, four were used in this study: Trust, Freedom, Responsibility, and Fire Suppression.

Methodology

Creation of Attitude Variables:

• Five-point attitude index, using the three prescribed fire attitude statements found in the assessment.

• Dichotomous positive or negative attitude: – Positive attitude group, mean ≤ 4 on the attitude index, n = 575.

– Negative attitude group, mean > 4 on the attitude index, n = 50.

• Dichotomous moderate or extreme attitude: – Extreme attitude group, mean ≥ 6 or 2 ≤ on the attitude index, n = 392.

– Moderate attitude group, mean between 2 and 6 on the attitude index, n = 233.

Results

R1: Determine if respondents’ extreme attitudes toward prescribed fire are characterized by different levels of integrative complexity than respondents with moderate attitudes. • Previous research suggests that there is a significant relationship between

integrative complexity and attitude extremity.

• Independent samples t-tests used to examine this objective.

• Significant results: t(537) = 5.61, p <.001, d = .46

Comparison of Integrative Complexity (IC) Between Attitude Direction and Extremity Groups:

Independent Samples T-tests

n Mean IC SD t-value p-value

Attitude Direction

Positive Attitude 575 .49 .31 1.19 .234

Negative Attitude 50 .44 .35

Attitude Extremity

Moderate Attitude 233 .58 .28 5.61 p<.001

Extreme Attitude 392 .44 .32

Results


• Moderator variables affect the direction and/or strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.

• Should be no correlation between the moderator variable (integrative complexity) and the independent variables.

• Integrative complexity and the basic belief variables were all causal variables.

• Moderation supported if interaction path is significant.

(Baron & Kenny, 1986)

Regression Analysis for the Moderating Effects of Integrative Complexity (IC) on the Basic

Belief-Attitude Relationship

Independent Variablesb,c B Coefficientsa R² F-value

Freedom .08** -- -- .010 6.85

Freedom, IC .08* .13*** -- .033 10.50

Freedom, IC, Freedom*IC .16* .20** -.03 .036 7.57

Trust -.23*** -- -- .063 46.51

Trust, IC -.25*** .12*** -- .094 31.86

Trust, IC, Trust*IC -.57*** -.45*** .11*** .124 28.89

Responsibility .06 -- -- .004 2.53

Responsibility, IC .03 .12*** -- .022 6.85

Responsibility, IC,

Responsibility*IC -.001 .09 .01 .022 4.63

Fire Suppression .29*** -- -- .110 86.59

Fire Suppression, IC .31*** .12*** -- .137 49.03

Fire Suppression, IC, Fire

Suppression*IC .54*** .37*** -.08*** .154 37.42

* Indicates significance at p < .05, **indicates significance at p < .01, *** indicates significance at p < .001 a Dependent variable was the Prescribed Fire Attitude Index. b None of the independent variables showed a Pearson’s correlation >.90. Multicollinearity diagnoses were not conducted. c Three separate regression analyses were conducted for each independent variable: independent variable; independent variable and integrative complexity; independent variable, integrative complexity, and the interaction term.

Conclusions and Discussion

• R2: Results support integrative complexity as a moderator for the relationship between basic beliefs and attitudes toward prescribed fire: – The moderator affected the direction and/or strength of the

relationship between the independent (value-laden basic belief) and dependent (attitude toward prescribed fire) variables.

– An increase in the Trust interaction variable resulted in an increased positive attitude toward prescribed fire.

– In increase in the Fire Suppression interaction variable resulted in a decreased positive attitude toward prescribed fire.

– Similar to a previous study by Carroll and Bright (2009), this study found that moderation depended on the basic belief considered.

– Integrative complexity scale applied to a new research scenario.

lightstalkers.org








lightstalkers.org








lightstalkers.org








lightstalkers.org








lightstalkers.org


Implications • Societal:

– 20 to 50 years for the development of new forests

– How we view the forest and wildland fire management.

• Theoretical: – How does it enhance what we know about public perceptions?

– Continued application to complex and controversial issues.

– Wildland fire management in the interface next to wilderness areas.

• Managerial: – Communication, education, and collaboration at the appropriate level

of complexity.

– Critical need for fire social science/human dimensions research. (Jakes, 2007; Kobziar et al., 2009; Romme et al., 2006)

nationalfiretraining.net


Recommendations

• Application to different scenarios:

• Use of different leading questions: – Ensure that different dimensions are, or are not, being identified.

– Instead of “Strong/Weak”, use “Safe/Dangerous” or “Reliable/Unreliable.”

– Amount of variance may be greater when combined with basic beliefs and attitudes.

fs.fed.us

forc

o-o

p.c

om

fs.fed.us fs.fed.us


Recommendations • Analysis at different scales:

– Theory suggests that a federal-level policy manager would have higher level of thought complexity.

– Potential research question: Does a fire policy manager at USFS headquarters think more complexly than a fire manager at the national forest or ranger district?

fs.fed.us

fema.gov nps.gov wildfiretoday.com


Recommendations

• Application to different emergency management or military scenarios?

fs.fed.us

Co

lora

do

an.c

om

ww

w.9

new

s.co

m

ww

w.n

ews.

com

.au

Ott

awal

ife.

com


Mountain Pine

Beetle Infestation

US Forest Service

“New way of

doing things”

Iterative

cycle

Adaptive Management

Plan

Act

Monitor

Evaluate

Organizational Change

Monitor and

Evaluate

Planning,

Policy,

and Execution

Stakeholders

New policy incorporates

ecosystem management

“What are we trying to

achieve by our

management actions?”

Public perceptions

Cognitive hierarchy

Integrative complexity

“How do people think

about the issue?”

US Forest Service

Communication and

education

Collaboration and

participatory planning

Conceptual linkage

Component flow

(Limburg et al., 2002; Stankey et al., 2005)

Open system with MPB as the driving force.


Recommendations

• Management applications: – Managers can implement actions to potentially reduce the risk of a

high-intensity, catastrophic wildfire in the future.

– Managers must acknowledge the extent to which people understand the intricacy of the issue.

– Level of complexity has implications for the effectiveness of information programs designed to educate or persuade the public.

– Education and outreach tailored to meet the target audience’s level of thought complexity about prescribed fire.

fs.fed.us blm.gov


Recommendations






fs.fed.us pahrumpvalleytimes.com


Recommendations






fs.fed.us silvercitysd.com


Recommendations






fs.fed.us kcsg.com

Thanks to Stu Cottrell, Ph.D., Alan Bright, Ph.D., LTC (ret.) Bill Doe, Ph.D., Colorado State University, and

Josh Goldstein, Ph.D., The Nature Conservancy

Colorado State Forest Service, US Forest Service, the US Geological Survey, and the University of Wyoming’s Ruckelshaus Institute of Environment and Natural

Resources.

Bernard Fall, Ph.D. (1926-1967)

Street Without Joy: Indochina at War (1961)

Hell in a Very Small Place (1967)

Thought for today: “If it works, it is obsolete.”

“…we have worked too often

with well-working, but routine procedures and ideas. It is

about time new approaches-and above all-ideas be tried…”

(1964)

Presentation to the US Naval War College

Questions?

Related Research

National Science Foundation award #1204787

Earth Sciences Program

Water Sustainability and Climate Change:

“Water Quality and Supply Impacts from Climate-Induced Insect Tree Mortality and Resource Management in the Rocky

Mountain West” Reed Maxwell¹, Eric Dickensen¹, Alexis Navarre-Sitchler¹, Jonathan Sharp¹

John Stednick², Stuart Cottrell²

¹Colorado School of Mines

²Colorado State University

http://igwmc.mines.edu/Research/WSC.html

References • Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173−1182.

• Bright, A., & Barro, S. (2000). Integrative complexity and attitudes: A case study of plant and wildlife species protection. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 5, 30−47.

• Bright, A., & Burtz, R. (2006). Creating defensible space in the wildland-urban interface: The influence of values on perceptions and behavior. Environmental Management, 37(2), 170−185.

• Carroll, J., & Bright, A. (2009). The integrative complexity of wildfire management scale: Are we there yet? Human Ecology Review, 16(2), 211–221.

• Carroll, J., & Bright, A. (2010). Integrative complexity of public beliefs toward wildfire management: Development of a scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(2), 344−359.

• Carroll, M., Blatner, K., Cohn, P., & Morgan, T. (2007). Managing fire danger in the forests of the US inland northwest: A classic “wicked problem” in public land policy. Journal of Forestry, 105, 239–244.

References • Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An

introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

• Hicke, J., Johnson, M., Hayes, J., & Preisler, H. (2012). Effects of bark beetle-caused tree mortality on wildfire. Forest Ecology and Management, 271, 81–90.

• Homer, P., & Kahle, L. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 54, 638−646.

• Jakes, P. (2007). Social science informing forest management-Bringing new knowledge to fuels managers. Journal of Forestry, 105(3), 121−124.

• Jenkins, M., Runyon, J., Fettig, C., Page, W., & Bentz, B. (2013). Interactions among the mountain pine beetle, fires, and fuels. Forest Science, 60(X), on line-Aug ‘13).

• Kobziar, L., Rocca, M., Dicus, C., Hoffman, C., Sugihara, N., Thode, A., Varner, J., & Morgan, P. (2009). Challenges to educating the next generation of wildland fire professionals in the United States. Journal of Forestry, 107(7), 339−345.

• Limburg, K., O’Neill, R., Costanza, R., & Farber, S. (2002). Complex systems and valuation. Ecological Economics, 41, 409−420.

References • Manfredo, M. (2008). Who cares about wildlife? Social science concepts for

exploring human-wildlife relationships and conservation issues. New York, NY: Springer.

• Pyne, S. (2010). America’s fires: A historical context for policy and practice. Durham, NC: Forest Historical Society.

• Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.

• Romme, W., Clement, J., Hicke, J., Kulakowski, D., MacDonald, L., Shoennagel, T., & Veblen, T. (2006). Recent forest insect outbreaks and fire risk in Colorado: A brief synthesis of relevant research. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University.

• Stankey, G., Clark, R., & Bormann, B. (2005). Adaptive management of natural resources: Theory, concepts, and management institutions (General Technical Report PNW-GTR-654). Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

• Tarrant, M., Bright, A. & Cordell, H. (1997). Attitudes toward wildlife species protection: Assessing moderating and mediating effects in the value-attitude relationship. Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal, 2(2), 1-20.

References • Tetlock, P. (1989). Structure and function in political belief systems. In A. Pratkanis,

S. Breckler, & A. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 129-151). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Wells. G. (2012). Bark beetles and fire: Two forces of nature transforming western forests. Joint Fire Science Digest, 12, 1−14.

• Governor’s Task Force: http://www.dora.state.co.us/taskforce/

• Colorado State Legislature, Wildfire Matters Review Committee:

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CGA-LegislativeCouncil/CLC/1251642784983

• General information:

– National Interagency Fire Center, http://www.nifc.gov/

– National Wildfire Coordination Group, http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/glossary/index.htm

• Fall, B. (1964). The theory and practice of insurgency and counterinsurgency. Presentation at the US Naval War College. Reprinted in the Naval War College Review, Winter 1998, 51(1).

Documents

Incorporating Integrative Complexity into Wildland Fire ... · Incorporating Integrative Complexity into Wildland Fire Management Mike Czaja, ... White River NF (5 counties) ... Responsibility