synthesis

This infographic summarizes recommendations from a review of 32 research studies about communicating with the public about wildland fire and smoke

This literature review synthesizes empirical research about wildland fire communication to provide practitioners, such as land managers, public health and safety officials, community groups, and others working with the public, evidence-based recommendations for communication work. Key findings demonstrate that it is important to recognize communication as a context-specific and dynamic process, not a linear pathway or prescription, or one-size-fits-all approach. We found that practitioners engaging in this work may be most effective when they get to know their diverse publics, engage in honest and sincere relationship building, and communicate in ways that are locally and culturally relevant. This review offers recommendations from the academic literature for how and where to engage in communication about wildland fire and smoke from wildland fire. These recommendations are not intended to be a set of rigid prescriptions; rather, they are intended to provide a starting point for practitioners to think about the multiple ways to engage with the diverse groups with whom they work.

With exposure to wildland fire smoke projectedto further increase (Barbero et al. 2015) there is aclear need for efforts to better mitigate or adapt tosmoke impacts in high-risk areas. Such efforts relyon an understanding of how people perceive, planfor, and respond to smoke. This synthesis compilespublished scholarly literature on how individualsperceive wildland fire smoke to offer an overviewof current knowledge on wildland fire smoke perceptions.It is intended to serve as a documentationof the scope, parameters, and gaps of researchto date in this field.

People living in the Pacific Northwest confrontrisks associated with environmental hazards such as wildfire. Vulnerability to wildfire hazard is commonly recognized as being spatially distributed according to geographic conditions that collectively determine the probability of exposure. For example, exposure to wildfire hazard is higher for people living in rural, forested settings than in a strictly urban neighborhood because rural housing is built in close proximity to the threat source, e.g., flammable landscapes such as forests and chaparral. Yet, even if levels of exposure are held constant, not all people are equally susceptible to wildfire events. In other words, some people are more vulnerable to harm than others.