Wildfire narratives: Identifying and characterizing multiple understandings of western wildfire challenges

IF 4.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Environmental Science & Policy Pub Date : 2024-07-17 DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103824
{"title":"Wildfire narratives: Identifying and characterizing multiple understandings of western wildfire challenges","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103824","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Western wildfires present a complex sustainability challenge characterized by more severe fires and escalating risks. To mitigate western wildfire risks, collaborative management practices need to transform the processes involved in knowledge production, seizing the opportunities and overcoming obstacles associated with actors’ multiple understandings. Knowledge co-production represents an increasingly referenced process for bringing together diverse actors, including scientists from different disciplines and non-scientists, to construct place-based and action-oriented knowledge. While knowledge co-production scholarship emphasizes the importance of recognizing and legitimizing multiple understandings, processes for attending to multiple understandings lack a systematic exploratory method for identifying and characterizing what those understandings are. We employed a narrative analysis to empirically investigate multiple understandings within the context of western wildfire challenges. Based on sixty semi-structured interviews with influential actors, we identified nine social narratives that capture distinctions in the connections actors make between the causes, consequences, and solutions to wildfire challenges, in the spatial and temporal scale they emphasize, in the way they frame the challenge, and in the language they use. We also found differences in how actors demarcate social narratives' credibility, legitimacy, and saliency. Our research suggests that analyzing social narratives fills an essential gap in practice by providing a pragmatic exploratory process for identifying and characterizing actors’ multiple understandings.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124001588","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Western wildfires present a complex sustainability challenge characterized by more severe fires and escalating risks. To mitigate western wildfire risks, collaborative management practices need to transform the processes involved in knowledge production, seizing the opportunities and overcoming obstacles associated with actors’ multiple understandings. Knowledge co-production represents an increasingly referenced process for bringing together diverse actors, including scientists from different disciplines and non-scientists, to construct place-based and action-oriented knowledge. While knowledge co-production scholarship emphasizes the importance of recognizing and legitimizing multiple understandings, processes for attending to multiple understandings lack a systematic exploratory method for identifying and characterizing what those understandings are. We employed a narrative analysis to empirically investigate multiple understandings within the context of western wildfire challenges. Based on sixty semi-structured interviews with influential actors, we identified nine social narratives that capture distinctions in the connections actors make between the causes, consequences, and solutions to wildfire challenges, in the spatial and temporal scale they emphasize, in the way they frame the challenge, and in the language they use. We also found differences in how actors demarcate social narratives' credibility, legitimacy, and saliency. Our research suggests that analyzing social narratives fills an essential gap in practice by providing a pragmatic exploratory process for identifying and characterizing actors’ multiple understandings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
野火叙事:识别和描述对西部野火挑战的多种理解
西部野火带来了复杂的可持续性挑战,其特点是火灾更加严重,风险不断升级。为了降低西部野火风险,合作管理实践需要转变知识生产过程,抓住机遇并克服与参与者的多重理解相关的障碍。知识共同生产代表了一种被越来越多地引用的过程,它将不同的参与者(包括来自不同学科的科学家和非科学家)聚集在一起,构建基于地方和以行动为导向的知识。虽然知识共同生产的学术研究强调了承认多种理解并使其合法化的重要性,但关注多种理解的过程缺乏系统的探索方法来识别和描述这些理解。我们采用叙事分析法,对西部野火挑战背景下的多重理解进行了实证研究。根据对有影响力的参与者进行的 60 次半结构式访谈,我们确定了九种社会叙事,这些叙事捕捉到了参与者在野火挑战的原因、后果和解决方案之间的联系、他们所强调的空间和时间范围、他们为挑战设定框架的方式以及他们所使用的语言等方面的差异。我们还发现,行动者在如何划分社会叙事的可信度、合法性和显著性方面存在差异。我们的研究表明,分析社会叙事填补了实践中的一个重要空白,为确定和描述行动者的多重理解提供了一个务实的探索过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science & Policy 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
332
审稿时长
68 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Attending to the unattended: Why and how do local governments plan for access and functional needs in climate risk reduction? Beyond Academia: A case for reviews of gray literature for science-policy processes and applied research Of heroes and villains – How coalitions shape their narratives and what the public conservation debate is actually about? Enhancing meaningful Indigenous leadership and collaboration in international environmental governance forums
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1