1 of 10

Risk conceptions & understandings

January 22, 2025

2 of 10

Feelings are fast, instinctive, intuitive – ‘experiential’ mode of thinking

Guided by Affect

Analysis uses logic, reason, scientific deliberation. Slower, more labor intensive

Dual-process theories contend that these processes work together

Slovic et al., 2004

I

Risk as feelings v. Risk as analysis

3 of 10

Slovic et al., 2004

I

Examples

Feelings inform risk assessments

(e.g. positive affect perception of high benefit/risk ratio)

Images or narratives can induce greater perceptions of risk

Affective system sensitive to small, immediate risks and changes

(e.g. 1 death v. 1 million deaths)

4 of 10

Slovic et al., 2004

I

Takeaways for analytic and experiential thinking in risk analysis

Processes are intertwined; both important

Analysis without feeling may not lead to understanding or action

Feeling without analysis may lead to actions that increase risk

How to unify experiential and analytic processes?

5 of 10

Calkin et al., 2014

2

Using decision science and risk management to reduce “WUI disasters”

Risk: potential loss of homes in the WUI. Two components identified:

Probability of home exposures to flames and firebrands
Susceptibility of homes to fire

Mitigation options proposed to address each of these components:

Strategic reduction of fuel loads (prescribed burns, mechanical activities).
HIZ management and home hardening to reduce susceptibility/ignitability if a fire occurs

6 of 10

Calkin et al., 2014

2

Key takeaways

Scope of mitigation responsibility shifted to homeowners

Forest treatments may change fire behavior but won’t prevent fires

Need to focus on risk communication and risk sharing (agencies, responders, public)

Wildlands have value and landscape conditions should also be considered

7 of 10

Essen et al., 2023

3

Simple v. complex risk

Much of the current approach to wildfire reflects a simple risk paradigm

Identify hazards
Calculate risk
Deploy resources strategically
Rely on ‘expert’ knowledge; one-way information flow
Focus on short-term outcomes

8 of 10

Essen et al., 2023

3

Increasing recognition of wildfire as a ‘wicked’ problem requiring complex risk approach

Collaborative methods to address risk across public/private lands
Knowledge exchange (FAC Net, IPBN)
Shared power and responsibility
Networked, decentralized approach to defining priorities, identifying strategies, implementing activities

9 of 10

Essen et al., 2023

3

Challenges

Large institutions (e.g. USFS) can be ‘sticky’ and resistant to change

Declining capacity

Focus on suppression is reactive, perpetuates and justifies simple risk approach

Quantitative risk maps rely on one interpretation; don’t promote innovate approaches

10 of 10

Essen et al., 2023

3

Strategies

Integrate different knowledges and values

Inclusive, accountable, transparent engagement strategies

Invest in the inclusion of underrepresented stakeholders

Account for uneven distributions of risk

Refocus and rebalance investments across spatial, institutional, temporal scales