'wild' fires

This topical review is devoted to natural hazards, and more specifically, wild fires. In the last month or so there have been a number of fires in Ventura County, California that have had deleterious effects on human settlements. A significant amount of resources have been mobilized to combat these fires. This topical review explores the issue of wild fires through a lens of hazard conceptualization, the social construction of nature, and the inevitable politicization of what Mark Pelling calls a humanitarian disaster with a natural trigger (Pelling 2002, CNN 2006).

The recently deceased Gilbert White originally conceptualized the term natural hazard in the 1940’s. His physical oriented position laid down an ideological infrastructure in which technological fixes could operate fluidly. In this manner, natural hazards or disasters were usually met with narrow technological solutions. This external view of nature was fresh in the minds of policy makers who looked towards engineers for quick fixes to complex problems (Pelling 2002).

In the last few decades there has been a resistance to this physical paradigm in the form of a more socially based approach. It has been acknowledged that some of the intrinsic or unchanging aspects of hazards (i.e. the physical) may be aggravated or even caused by humans. These harmful anthropocentric processes include global warming, deforestation, and even hazard prevention itself in the form of man made structures such as dams. In recent years, there has been an increasing effort to examine human activities and their relation to vulnerability and risk (Castree 2002, Pelling 2002).

Mark Pelling’s conceptualization of the hazard as a humanitarian disaster with a natural trigger is significant. The degree of risk that a hazard creates is directly related to the levels of preparedness that a given human population may have. Pelling’s vulnerability assessments of exposure, resistance, and resilience provide insight into current manifestations of wild fires in Ventura County, Ca. (Pelling 2002).

I have also chosen to utilize the social construction of nature lens to view wild fires. This point of view is a radical departure from the ‘human-environment’ model that many social scientists rely on. The human environment model has three fundamental components. These tenets present nature as an entity external to humans, as unchanging or intrinsic, and as all encompassing or universal. The social construction theory posits that definitions of nature not only differ by a particular society or culture, but also are likely to be formed by power with hegemonic intentions (Smith 1996a, Castree 2002).

Cronon illustrates this point by showing that definitions of nature have often contrasted with time, even in the same society. He sees a bifurcation of the natural and civilization in western culture. When nature is an obstacle to expansion or lies beyond the frontier of civilization, it is viewed as primordial and dangerous. However, more times than not, it has been viewed as a virgin territory ripe for exploitation by capitalist needs. Contrasting with the past, in current times, nature is often viewed as something sublime to be enjoyed by the upper classes. This brief outline of the social construction of nature aids us in expounding problems associated with wild fires (Cronon 1996, Smith 1996a, Proctor 1998).

In the case of wildfires, the middle class and wealthy are put at risk along with the poor. Hazardous areas can be attractive to rich clientele. In the case of areas vulnerable to hurricanes, waterfront ambience can be viewed as a consumer amenity. For wildfires, the topic at hand, those with exurbian lifestyles are particularly at risk (Davis and Nelson 1994).

According to Davis and Nelson, the exurbs are characterized by their spatial position between the established suburban and the rural. This situating of an exurbian landscape is quite vague. However, regardless of exact spatial orientation, this term does represent a significant residential shift. Though the exurbs are usually explained in terms of consumption desires, i.e. desire to get away from the city, larger estates, and cheaper land, it is important to look at this trend in the midst of urban restructuring (Garreu 1991, Davis and Nelson 1994, Smith 1996b, Smith 2002).

In terms of transportation, one must situate exurbia in the spatial locus of emerging edge cities. Employment in the Central Business District has significantly declined. Occupations in edge cities allow shorter commutes for exurbian residents. Exurbia must also be framed in the context of continued suburban expansion. In case of exurbia, developers may have simply chosen to leap frog over areas adjacent to existing suburbs in hope that returns on investment would be greater. Through advertisement to potential consumers, those desiring a ‘rural’ lifestyle are solicited (Garreau 1991, Davis and Nelson 1994, Smith 1996).

The very existence of exurbia, which in many cases spatially coincides with rural/poor settlements, is emblematic of contradictions that arise in the environment and the people perspective. Exurbian consumers bring many of their ‘urban’ consumption patterns to ‘rural’ space. This move to the rural is very much couched in the idea of an intrinsic nature. The ideology of untouched nature resonates in the producers and consumers of this space. By bringing their consumptive habits to these areas, they are fundamentally altering the space they live in. An unchanging view of nature elides this reality. It is reasoned that nature ceases to exist in a concrete urban locale, but can be found in a less densely populated rural area. From a social construction view of nature, this is clearly not reality (Proctor 1998, Castree 2002).

Keeping these factors in mind one may still inquire about the economic viability of building in potentially hazardous areas. Withstanding certain exceptions, (charging high insurance rates, manufacture of buildings, and use of raw materials), persons do not wish to have their houses burnt down. There is something to be said about scientific conceptualizations of natural hazards and their relation to risky settlement patterns. In other words, what has mainstream scientific theory done to alleviate or exacerbate this problem? (In a constructivist point of view, science is socially constructed as well) (Proctor 1998).

Ultimately, like many phenomena in geography, current views of fire hazards can be traced back to Davis’ geomorphological cycle. Influenced by Darwin and Lyell, he introduced incrementalism into Geography. In this paradigm, there is little room for catastrophic or rapid time events. The ideology behind incrementalism was created as a polemic to biblical tales such as the great flood. This principle has had a strong foothold in the physical and social sciences for years. Strict adherence to this slow or gradual approach has hindered the development of dynamic theories pertaining to events caused by catastrophic action, such as dinosaur extinction (Davis 1954, Sauer 1956, Stoddart 1981).

In the last section of this review, I will localize the problem by exploring some data taken from the Census and expound the political nature of these wild fires.

As mentioned earlier, human vulnerability to hazards is important. These wild fires, though occurring at relatively regular time intervals, are not broad reaching in terms of their effect on human populations. Despite their absolute numbers, persons in Ventura County have access to resources at many scales. In fact, governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency for Ventura County in September. This action allowed state funds to be funneled into the area. According to a CNN article, as of September 26th, 43 million dollars were expended and 350 fire fighters were employed to fight this particular blaze (CNN 2006).

Only five hundred people were given voluntary evacuation advice when the fire reached within a mile and a half of a small community named Lockwood Valley. Depending on ones definition of metropolitan, the northeast part of Ventura County that these fires are located in can be considered part of the L.A. metro area. They lay only a few hours drive from downtown L.A. The Census tract, which encompasses these fires is 65 miles across and covers most of Northern Ventura County. According to the 2000 Census, this area only contained 843 persons, 92 percent of which were white. The median household income was close to 60,000 dollars (Census 2000, CNN 2006).

The previous was a very brief demographic profile of the area, but nonetheless, it is very telling. The number of fire fighters trying to contain this blaze is comparable to the number of people living in the surrounding communities. These examples show how political natural hazards really are. The ability to garner protection from hazardous events seems to be a question of resource distribution. Persons with power are able to mobilize resources to significantly lessen their level of risk.

The governmental and scientific commitment to preventing, and in this case containing fires is a case of egregious political bias. Definitions of hazards and disasters have real connotations for the groups affected. The governor’s decree of ‘state of emergency’ is certainly selective. Chronic anthropocentric hazards caused by localized uneven development in the L.A. metropolitan area are evidently not acknowledged by the state as emergency worthy. The state in the form of hazard response cannot be acknowledged as an institution or body that equally responds to humanitarian plights. The state plays a significant role because it controls the resources that can be used to combat or eradicate certain hazards (Pelling 2002, CNN 2006).

Governmental support in the form of fire fighting encourages developers to build in these areas. This process continually puts more people at risk from fires. By providing assistance, the government is essentially subsidizing further development. Coupled with an increased desire for the consumption of exurbian spaces, this ‘hazard’ will only become more pronounced in the future. More than likely, the response will be continued investment into technological fixes. It is easy to see how this cycle of development and increased vulnerability perpetuates itself. It is also clear that the state’s resources are often allocated to decreasing the vulnerability of the few and powerful, while the masses are continually put at risk from hazards that may or may not be defined as natural.










Works Cited

Castree, N., “Socializing Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics,” in Noel Castree and
Bruce Braun, eds., Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers 2001, 1-22.

Census Bureau. American Fact Finder. 12 Oct , 2006. Census Bureau. 12 Oct 2006
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en

Cronon, W., “The Trouble with Wilderness, a Response,” Environmental History 1,
1996, 47-55.

CNN: Ventura County Fires. Wildfires. 26 Sept, 2006. CNN.com. 15 Oct 2006
< http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2006/wildfires/index.html>

Davis, W., “The Geographical Cycle,” in Davis, Geographical Essays. Dover, 1954 eds.,
248-278.

Davis, J., and Nelson, A., “The New ‘Burbs’: The Exurbs and Their Implications for
Planning Policy,” Journal of the American Planning Assocation 60.1, 1994, 45-60.

Garreau, J., Edge City, New York: Doubleday, 1991.

Pelling, M., “Natural Disasters?,” in Noel Castree and Bruce Braun, eds., Social
Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 2001, 170-189.

Proctor, J., “The Social Construction of Nature: Relativist Accusations, Pragmatist and
Critical Realist Responses,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers
88.3, 1998, 352-376.

Sauer, C., “The Agency of Man,” in Thomas William Thomas, Man’s Role in Changing
the Face of the Earth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956, 49-69.

Smith, N., “The Production of Nature” in George Robertson and Melinda Mash, eds.,
FutureNatural. London: Routledge, 1996a, 111-143.

Smith, N., The New Urban Frontier, Gentrification and the Revanchist City, New York:
Routledge, 1996b.

Smith, N., “New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Strategy,”
Antipode 34.3, 2002, 427-450.

Stoddart, D., “Darwin’s Impact on Geography,” in Stoddart, On Geography. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1981, 158-179.