Comparing social constructions of wildfire risk across media, government, and participatory discourse in a Colorado fireshed

This study examined how wildfire risk is framed by different entities and actors within a common region, during and after experiencing several large wildfire events. Using a social constructionist lens, we viewed wildfire risk as a fluid and variable concept that is socially constructed and framed through public discourse. Inconsistent social constructions of wildfire risk may pose challenges for effective wildfire risk governance and management, which requires the coordination of diverse entities including government, land managers, homeowners, and community groups. We sought to understand differing social constructions of wildfire risk within one region, the Northern Colorado Front Range, across four domains of social discourse: mainstream media coverage, governmental planning documents, a community collaborative group’s meeting notes, and Community Wildfire Protection Plans. Through multiple rounds of qualitative coding, we compared how values at risk, causes of risk, and solutions to mitigate risk are framed across discourse domains. We also identified which agencies, organizations, or other actors’ voices were most prominent within each domain. Our results show inconsistent framings of wildfire risk definition across the data, building upon past literature that has identified divides between fire suppression and mitigation work, as well as disconnects between media representations of fire and perspectives of resource managers and scientists. Lastly, we highlight two examples of cross-cutting discourses - public drinking water and smoke – as concepts that span boundaries and may have the power to generate broader coordination and support for wildfire policy solutions and action.