Catching Fire? Social Interactions, Beliefs, and Wildfire Risk Mitigation Behaviors

Abstract

Social interactions are widely recognized as a potential influence on risk-related behaviors. We present a mediation model in which social interactions (classified as formal/informal and generic/fire-specific) are associated with beliefs about wildfire risk and mitigation options, which in turn shape wildfire mitigation behaviors. We test this model using survey data from fire-prone areas of Colorado. In several cases, our results are consistent with the mediation hypotheses for mitigation actions specifically targeting vegetative fuel reduction. Perceived wildfire probability partially mediates the relationship between several interaction types and vegetative mitigation behaviors, while perceptions of aesthetic barriers and lack of information play a mediating role in the case of fire-specific formal interactions. Our results suggest that social interactions may allow mitigation and prevention behaviors to “catch fire” within a community, and that wildfire education programs could leverage these interactions to enhance programmatic benefits.

Keywords:

• natural hazards
• risk mitigation
• social interactions
• wildfire

Acknowledgement

We thank Tony Simons and Eric Philips for providing local expertise on the study counties. We also thank Jennifer Boehnert for her GIS assistance. Three anonymous reviewers and the journal's editor provided valuable feedback that greatly improved the quality of this article.

Notes

It is also the case that social interactions within households (e.g., between spouses) can play an important role in shaping wildfire-related beliefs and mitigation actions. For the purposes of this article, we are focused on interactions between households.

This lack of correspondence between our sample and the census areas also precludes application of survey weights.

Unfortunately, our survey did not include good measures of the perceived social rewards or penalties of mitigation, such as whether individuals think that neighbors would approve of mitigation actions. These types of measures would be a useful addition to future surveys.

In other analyses we ran where the efficacy variable is included without the other belief measures, the relationship with vegetative mitigation is positive and not significant.

Experimental and quasi-experimental approaches offer one potential solution to some of the challenges involved in identifying causal social effects. Laboratory experiments in this vein include Meyer's (2008) use of computer-based visual games to examine households’ protective decisions in the face of earthquakes and hurricanes. Relevant field experiments include the use of “social comparisons” messages that focus attention on how an individual's behavior stacks up against that of her peers (e.g., Ferraro and Price 2013).