Cited by 297Disaster Management and ResilienceFire effects on ecosystemsRisk Perception and Management

Social science research related to wildfire management: an overview of recent findings and future research needs

McCaffrey, Sarah, Toman, Eric, Stidham, Melanie, Shindler, Bruce·2013·International Journal of Wildland Fire

Abstract

As with other aspects of natural-resource management, the approach to managing wildland fires has evolved over time as scientific understanding has advanced and the broader context surrounding management decisions has changed. Prior to 2000 the primary focus of most fire research was on the physical and ecological aspects of fire; social science research was limited to a small number of studies. However, as more people moved into fire-prone areas interest grew in understanding relevant social dynamics. This growing interest was supported by increased funding for fire research overall with the creation of the Joint Fire Science Program in 1998 and the National Fire Plan in 2000. In subsequent years, a significant body of research has developed on the human dimensions of wildland fire covering diverse topics including: attitudes towards pre-fire mitigation, social acceptability of fire and fuels management, community preparedness, public response during fires, citizen–agency communications and post-fire recovery. This paper reports on two aspects of a Joint Fire Science Program project intended to take stock of the key social science lessons provided to date: a basic review of findings in the non-economic fire social science literature and identification of future research needs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/wf11115

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In general society has a preference for active management to address wildfire risk and degrading ecological conditions of fire adapted forests.

    “In general society has a preference for active management to address wildfire risk and degrading ecological conditions of fire adapted forests (McCaffrey et al. 2012).”

    From Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management (2015) · cites this paper as McCaffrey et al. 2012

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCaffrey, S., Toman, E., Stidham, M., & Shindler, B.
Affiliations
  • US Forest Service (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Oregon State University (US)
Corresponding author
McCaffrey, Sarah
Venue
International Journal of Wildland Fire
Published
2012-07-12
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
15-24
ISSN
  • 1049-8001 (ISSN-L)
  • 1448-5516
OpenAlex
W2128905206
Cited by
297
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
44.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Wildland Fire (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
Keywords
wildfire management, fuel management, social acceptance, community preparedness, post-fire recovery, National Fire Plan, fire-prone areas, research needs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review