Yerel halkın orman yangın yönetimine katılımı ve gönüllülüğü - Sistematik bir inceleme

Öz

Orman yangınları son yıllarda çok fazla ekonomik, ekolojik ve sosyal zarara neden olmuştur. Bu nedenle Orman Yangını yönetiminde (OYY) karar vericilerin işi giderek zorlaşmaktadır. Gelişen karar destek sistemleri karar vericilere yardımcı olsa da hala bazı eksikliklerin olduğu aşikardır. Bu bağlamda, yerel halkın orman yangını yönetiminde aktif rol almasının, hem bilgi toplayabilmesi hem de Yabanıl Kentsel Arayüz (YKA) alanlarında orman yangınıyla doğrudan karşılaşması nedeniyle bu eksiklikleri giderebileceği ve orman yangınıyla mücadelede faydalı olabileceği düşünülmektedir. Bu çalışmada, YKA, Halkın katılımı ve karar verme süreci hakkında genel bilgiler ve bunların orman yangını ile ilişkileri sunulduktan sonra, yerel halkın orman yangını yönetimine katılımı ve bu konudaki karar verme süreçlerinin nasıl ilerlediğine dair son çalışmalar Sistematik İncelemeler ve Meta-Analiz için Tercih Edilen Raporlama Öğeleri (PRISMA) tekniği kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda, orman yangını yönetiminde yukarıdan aşağıya yönetim yaklaşımı yerine Toplum Tabanlı Entegre Yangın Yönetimi (TEGY) yaklaşımının yaygınlaştırılması gerektiği ortaya çıkmıştır. Sonuçlar, karar vericilerin yerel toplumun sosyo-ekonomik çıkarlarını gözden geçirerek yangın yönetimine katılım ilkesinin nasıl işlemesi gerektiğine karar vermeleri gerektiğini kuvvetle önermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Orman yangını
• Yaban arazisi kentsel arayüz
• Katılım
• Karar verme

Local community participation and volunteerism in wildfire area management: A systematic review

Öz

Wildfires have caused considerable economic, ecological, and social damage in recent years. For this reason, decision-makers in wildfire management (WFM) have face increasingly difficult challenges. While decision support systems help decision-makers, it is clear that some deficiencies still persist. In this context, it is thought that the active role of local people involved in wildfire management can eliminate these deficiencies because they have experience and direct knowledge about fighting wildfires in Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas. Hence, their expertise can be utilized in future wildfire containment efforts. In this study, the author presents some general information about WUI, public participation, and the decision-making process and its relation to wildfires. In addition, the author will also examine previous studies on the participation of local people in wildfire management and investigate the decision-making processes regarding this issue by using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) technique. The results of this study suggest that there should be a widespread adoption of the community-based integrated fire management (CBIFM) approach, instead of the top-down management approach commonly employed in wildfire management. The results strongly suggest that decision-makers should reach a consensus as to how the principle of participation in fire management should work by reviewing the socio-economic interests of the local community.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Forest fire
• Wildland urban interface
• Attendance
• Decision-making

Kaynakça

1. Aguilar, S., & Montiel, C., 2011. The challenge of applying governance and sustainable development to wildland fire management in Southern Europe. Journal of Forestry Research, 22(4): 627–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-011-0168-6
2. Bihari, M., & Ryan, R., 2012. Influence of social capital on community preparedness for wildfires. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106(3): 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.landurbplan.2012.03.011
3. Bouillon, C. & et. al., 2018. WUI, planning and fires in South of France. In D. X. (ed.) Viegas, Advances in forest fire research 2018 (1st ed., pp. 878–888). Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra. https://doi.org/10.14195/978-989-26-16-506_97
4. Calkin, D. E., Thompson, M. P., Finney, M. A., & Hyde, K. D., 2011. A real-time risk assessment tool supporting wildland fire decision-making. Journal of Forestry. 109(5): 274-280.
5. Chuvieco, E., Aguado, I., Yebra, M., Nieto, H., Salas, J., Martín, M. P., Vilar, L., Martínez, J., Martín, S., Ibarra, P., de la Riva, J., Baeza, J., Rodríguez, F., Molina, J. R., Herrera, M. A., & Zamora, R., 2010. Development of a framework for fire risk assessment using remote sensing and geographic information system technologies. Ecological Modelling, 221(1): 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.11.017
6. Cohen, J., 2008. The wildland-urban interface fire problem: A consequence of the fire exclusion paradigm. Forest History Today. Fall: 20-26.
7. Cohen, J., 2010. The wildland-urban interface fire problem. Fremontia. 38(2)-38(3): 16-22., 16–22.
8. Devisscher, T., Malhi, Y., & Boyd, E., 2019. Deliberation for wildfire risk management: Addressing conflicting views in the Chiquitania, Bolivia. The Geographical Journal, 185(1): 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12261

9. Dombeck, M. P., Williams, J. E., & Wood, C. A., 2004. Wildfire Policy and Public Lands: Integrating Scientific Understanding with Social Concerns across Landscapes. Conservation Biology, 18(4): 883–889. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00491.x
10. Dube, O. P., 2013. Challenges of wildland fire management in Botswana: Towards a community inclusive fire management approach. Weather and Climate Extremes, 1: 26–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2013.08.001
11. Ferster, C., Coops, N., Harshaw, H., Kozak, R., & Meitner, M., 2013. An Exploratory Assessment of a Smartphone Application for Public Participation in Forest Fuels Measurement in the Wildland-Urban Interface. Forests, 4(4): 1199–1219. https://doi.org/10.3390/f4041199
12. Fischer, A. P., Spies, T. A., Steelman, T. A., Moseley, C., Johnson, B. R., Bailey, J. D., Ager, A. A., Bourgeron, P., Charnley, S., Collins, B. M., Kline, J. D., Leahy, J. E., Littell, J. S., Millington, J. D., Nielsen‐Pincus, M., Olsen, C. S., Paveglio, T. B., Roos, C. I., Steen‐Adams, M. M., … Bowman, D. M., 2016a. Wildfire risk as a socioecological pathology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(5): 276–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1283
13. Fischer, A. P., Vance-Borland, K., Jasny, L., Grimm, K. E., & Charnley, S., 2016b. A network approach to assessing social capacity for landscape planning: The case of fire-prone forests in Oregon, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning, 147: 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.10.006
14. Ghasemi, B., Kyle, G. T., & Absher, J. D., 2020. An examination of the social-psychological drivers of homeowner wildfire mitigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70: 101442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101442
15. Khatun, K., Corbera, E., & Ball, S., 2017. Fire is REDD+: Offsetting carbon through early burning activities in south-eastern Tanzania. Oryx, 51(1): 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316000090
16. Kramer, H. A., Mockrin, M. H., Alexandre, P. M., Stewart, S. I., & Radeloff, V. C., 2018. Where wildfires destroy buildings in the US relative to the wildland–urban interface and national fire outreach programs. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 27(5): 329. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF17135
17. Lineal, M., & Laituri, M., 2013. Community-based integrated fire management planning: Linking ecology and society in Honduras. Community Development Journal, 48(1): 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bss015
18. Mallett, R., Hagen-Zanker, J., Slater, R., & Duvendack, M., 2012. The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development research. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4(3): 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19439342.2012.711342
19. Marques, S., Marto, M., Bushenkov, V., McDill, M., & Borges, JoséG., 2017. Addressing Wildfire Risk in Forest Management Planning with Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methods. Sustainability, 9(2): 298. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020298 Marta-Costa, A., Torres-Manso, F., Pinto, R., Tibério, L., & Carneiro, I., 2016. Stakeholders’ perception of forest management: A Portuguese mountain case study. Forest Systems, 25(1): 052. https://doi.org/10.5424/fs/2016251-08122
20. Martell, D., 2011. The development and implementation of forest and wildland fire management decision support systems: Reflections on past practices and emerging needs and challenges. MCFNS, 3: 18–26.
21. Martell, D. L., 2015. A Review of Recent Forest and Wildland Fire Management Decision Support Systems Research. Current Forestry Reports, 1(2): 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40725-015-0011-y
22. McGee, T. K., 2011. Public engagement in neighbourhood level wildfire mitigation and preparedness: Case studies from Canada, the US and Australia. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(10): 2524–2532. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2011.05.017
23. Minas, J. P., Hearne, J. W., & Martell, D. L., 2014. A spatial optimisation model for multi-period landscape level fuel management to mitigate wildfire impacts. European Journal of Operational Research, 232(2): 412–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.07.026
24. Mistry, J., Schmidt, I. B., Eloy, L., & Bilbao, B., 2019. New perspectives in fire management in South American savannas: The importance of intercultural governance. Ambio, 48(2): 172–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1054-7
25. Moritz, M. A., Batllori, E., Bradstock, R. A., Gill, A. M., Handmer, J., Hessburg, P. F., Leonard, J., McCaffrey, S., Odion, D. C., Schoennagel, T., & Syphard, A. D., 2014. Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature, 515(7525): 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13946
26. Ni’mah, N. L. K., Herdiansyah, H., Soesilo, T. E. B., & Mutia, E. F., 2018. Strategy for increasing the participation of masyarakat peduli api in forest fire control. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 126: 012148. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/126/1/012148
27. Nyongesa, K., & Vacik, H., 2018. Fire Management in Mount Kenya: A Case Study of Gathiuru Forest Station. Forests, 9(8): 481. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9080481
28. Nyongesa, K. W., & Vacik, H., 2019. Evaluating Management Strategies for Mount Kenya Forest Reserve and National Park to Reduce Fire Danger and Address Interests of Various Stakeholders. Forests, 10(5): 426. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10050426
29. Ok, K., Uruşak, U., Kanadoğlu, O. K., 2018. Constitutionally of land aggregation, water allocation and forestry within the scope of act numbered as 7139. Union of Turkish Bar Associations Review, 137: 133-217.
30. Okoli, C., 2015. A Guide to Conducting a Standalone Systematic Literature Review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37. https://doi.org/10.17705/ 1CAIS.03743
31. Pacheco, A. P., Claro, J., Fernandes, P. M., de Neufville, R., Oliveira, T. M., Borges, J. G., & Rodrigues, J. C., 2015. Cohesive fire management within an uncertain environment: A review of risk handling and decision support systems. Forest Ecology and Management, 347: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.02.033
32. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D., 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 Patrão, A., 2014. Crossing the crossroad: Challenges for the implementation of a collaborative wildfire management program in Portugal. In D. X. Viegas, Advances in forest fire research (pp. 1814–1820). Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra. https://doi.org/10.14195/978-989-26-0884-6_200
33. Plucinski, M. P., 2019. Contain and Control: Wildfire Suppression Effectiveness at Incidents and Across Landscapes. Current Forestry Reports, 5(1): 20–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-019-00085-4
34. Reams, M. A., Haines, T. K., Renner, C. R., Wascom, M. W., & Kingre, H., 2005. Goals, obstacles and effective strategies of wildfire mitigation programs in the Wildland–Urban Interface. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(5): 818–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2005.03.006
35. Santos, J. L., Martins, A., Novais, A., & Canadas, M. J., 2021. A Choice-Modeling Approach to Inform Policies Aimed at Reducing Wildfire Hazard through the Promotion of Fuel Management by Forest Owners. Forests, 12(4): 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12040403
36. Tedim, F., Leone, V., & Xanthopoulos, G., 2016. A wildfire risk management concept based on a social-ecological approach in the European Union: Fire Smart Territory. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 18: 138–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.06.005
37. The Rio Conventions: Action on Forests. (2017, November 29). https://landportal.org/node/63251, Accessed: 22.09.2022.
38. Thompson, M. P., MacGregor, D. G., & Calkin, D., 2016. Risk management: Core principles and practices, and their relevance to wildland fire (RMRS-GTR-350; p. RMRS-GTR-350). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. https://doi.org/10.2737/RMRS-GTR-350
39. Thompson, M. P., Wei, Y., Calkin, D. E., O’Connor, C. D., Dunn, C. J., Anderson, N. M., & Hogland, J. S., 2019. Risk Management and Analytics in Wildfire Response. Current Forestry Reports, 5(4): 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-019-00101-7
40. Tolunay, A. & Özmiş, M., 2022. Ekosistem Hizmeti Oluşturan Kırsal Etkinliklere Yönelik Ödeme Eğiliminin Belirlenmesi: Orman Kaynaklarında Küçükbaş Hayvan Yetiştiriciliği ile Orman Yangını Riskinin Azaltılması Örneği. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 24 (3): 557-579. DOI: 10.24011/ barofd.1132677
41. Wei, Y., Thompson, M. P., Haas, J. R., Dillon, G. K., & O’Connor, C. D., 2018. Spatial optimization of operationally relevant large fire confine and point protection strategies: Model development and test cases. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 48(5): 480–493. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2017-0271
42. Welch, J. R., & Coimbra Jr., C. E. A., 2021. Indigenous fire ecologies, restoration, and territorial sovereignty in the Brazilian Cerrado: The case of two Xavante reserves. Land Use Policy, 104, 104055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019. 1040