Introduction/Overview to In Situ Burning of Oil Spills

In situ burning is an oil spill response technique or tool that involves the controlled ignition and burning of the oil at or near the spill site on the surface of the water or in a marsh (see Lindau et al., this volume). Although controversial, burning has been shown on several recent occasions to be an appropriate oil spill countermeasure. When used early in a spill before the oil weathers and releases its volatile components, burning can remove oil from the waters surface very efficiently and at very high rates. Removal efficiencies for thick slicks can easily exceed 95% (Advanced In Situ Burn Course, Spiltec, Woodinville, WA, 1997). In situ burning offers a logistically simple, rapid, inexpensive and if controlled a relatively safe means for reducing the environmental impacts of an oil spill. Because burning rapidly changes large quantities of oil into its primary combustion products (water and carbon dioxide), the need for collection, storage, transport and disposal of recovered material is greatly reduced. The use of towed fire containment boom to capture, thicken and isolate a portion of a spill, followed by ignition, is far less complex than the operations involved in mechanical recovery, transfer, storage, treatment and disposal (The Science, Technology, and Effects of Controlled Burning of Oil Spills at Sea, Marine Spill Response Corporation, Washington, DC, 1994).However, there is a limited window-of-opportunity (or time period of effectiveness) to conduct successful burn operations. The type of oil spilled, prevailing meteorological and oceanographic (environmental) conditions and the time it takes for the oil to emulsify define the window (see Buist, this volume and Nordvik et al., this volume). Once spilled, oil begins to form a stable emulsion: when the water content exceeds 25% most slicks are unignitable. In situ burning is being viewed with renewed interest as a response tool in high latitude waters where other techniques may not be possible or advisable due to the physical environment (extreme low temperatures, ice-infested waters), or the remoteness of the impacted area. Additionally, the magnitude of the spill may quickly overwhelm the deployed equipment necessitating the consideration of other techniques in the overall response strategy (The Science, Technology, and Effects of Controlled Burning of Oil Spills at Sea, Marine Spill Response Corporation, Washington, DC, 1994; Proceedings of the In Situ Burning of Oil Spills Workshop. NIST. SP934. MMS. 1998, p. 31; Basics of Oil Spill Cleanup, Lewis Publishers, Washington, DC, 2001, p. 233). This paper brings together the current knowledge on in situ burning and is an effort to gain regulatory acceptance for this promising oil spill response tool.     

Trying Not to Get Burned: Understanding Homeowners’ Wildfire Risk–Mitigation Behaviors

Three causes have been identified for the spiraling cost of wildfire suppression in the United States: climate change, fuel accumulation from past wildfire suppression, and development in fire-prone areas. Because little is likely to be performed to halt the effects of climate on wildfire risk, and because fuel-management budgets cannot keep pace with fuel accumulation let alone reverse it, changing the behaviors of existing and potential homeowners in fire-prone areas is the most promising approach to decreasing the cost of suppressing wildfires in the wildland–urban interface and increasing the odds of homes surviving wildfire events. Wildfire education efforts encourage homeowners to manage their property to decrease wildfire risk. Such programs may be more effective with a better understanding of the factors related to homeowners’ decisions to undertake wildfire risk–reduction actions. In this study, we measured whether homeowners had implemented 12 wildfire risk–mitigation measures in 2 Colorado Front Range counties. We found that wildfire information received from local volunteer fire departments and county wildfire specialists, as well as talking with neighbors about wildfire, were positively associated with higher levels of mitigation. Firsthand experience in the form of preparing for or undertaking an evacuation was also associated with a higher level of mitigation. Finally, homeowners who perceived higher levels of wildfire risk on their property had undertaken higher levels of wildfire-risk mitigation on their property.     

Understanding the Wicked Nature of “Unmanaged Recreation” in Colorado’s Front Range

Unmanaged recreation presents a challenge to both researchers and managers of outdoor recreation in the United States because it is shrouded in uncertainty resulting from disagreement over the definition of the problem, the strategies for resolving the problem, and the outcomes of management. Incomplete knowledge about recreation visitors’ values and relationships with one another, other stakeholders, and the land further complicate the problem. Uncertainty and social complexity make the unmanaged recreation issue a wicked problem. We describe the wickedness inherent in unmanaged recreation and some of the implications of wickedness for addressing the problem for the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. Conclusions about the nature of the problem are based on a problem appraisal that included a literature review and interviews of key informants. Addressing wickedness calls for institutional changes that allow for and reward the use of trust building, inclusive communication, and genuinely collaborative processes.     

Stakeholder Understandings of Wildfire Mitigation: A Case of Shared and Contested Meanings

This article identifies and compares meanings of wildfire risk mitigation for stakeholders in the Front Range of Colorado, USA. We examine the case of a collaborative partnership sponsored by government agencies and directed to decrease hazardous fuels in interface areas. Data were collected by way of key informant interviews and focus groups. The analysis is guided by the Circuit of Culture model in communication research. We found both shared and differing meanings between members of this partnership (the "producers") and other stakeholders not formally in the partnership (the "consumers"). We conclude that those promoting the partnership's project to mitigate risk are primarily aligned with a discourse of scientific management. Stakeholders outside the partnership follow a discourse of community. We argue that failure to recognize and account for differences in the way risk mitigation is framed and related power dynamics could hamper the communicational efforts of the collaborative partnership and impact goals for fuels reduction. We recommend ways that both groups can capitalize on shared meanings and how agency managers and decision makers can build better working relationships with interface communities and other external stakeholders.