You are here

Social values, ethics


The hazards-of-place model posits that vulnerability to environmental hazards depends on both biophysical and social factors. Biophysical factors determine where wildfire potential is elevated, whereas social factors determine where and how people are affected by wildfire. We evaluated place vulnerability to wildfire hazards in the coterminous US.
There is growing interest in the implications of military service for the political attitudes, behaviors, and activism of military veterans. This article considers how promission and antiwar veterans’ narrate their experiences of becoming political activists and the mechanisms that effect that transition.
Understanding the local context that shapes collective response to wildfire risk continues to be a challenge for scientists and policymakers. This study utilizes and expands on a conceptual approach for understanding adaptive capacity to wildfire in a comparison of 18 past case studies.
The southeastern U.S. is one of the more wildland fire prone areas of the country and also contains some of the poorest or most socially vulnerable rural communities. Our project addresses wildland fire risk in this part of the U.S and its intersection with social vulnerability.
Environmental losses, each described along with its cause, were judged for seriousness. Four types of cause were studied: illegal behavior, carelessness, economic and population growth, and natural events. Identical environmental losses (e.g., of a herd of elk or a large stand of trees) were considered most serious when caused by illegal behavior or carelessness, and only slightly less serious when caused by growth.
A study of visitors to Oregon's Eagle Cap Wilderness in 1965 offered a baseline against which to evaluate how those who recreate in wilderness have changed their views of wilderness. A study of visitors to that same wilderness area in 1993 provided comparative data.