Search for: All records

Wildfire severity is increasing in the western United States. Simultaneously, many recognize that fire is a natural process and advocate for learning to live with fire. Indeed, the naturalness of fire can be an important reason provided to increase the amount of fire on a landscape. However, “naturalness” can be interpreted in incommensurate ways, such as the historic range of variability of a system or the absence of human influence. What makes wildfires feel natural or unnatural to the people who experience them, and how naturalness affects reactions to wildfires is underexplored. Using social representations theory, we examine the 2023 Lookout Fire at the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest (HJA). We use semi-structured interviews (n = 40) to explore how the research community associated with the HJA mentally constructs and uses naturalness to emotionally process and make meaning from the wildfire. We find even in a community with advanced training in ecology, respondents use a variety of metrics to determine naturalness, including ignition source, fire behavior, and pre-fire landscape characteristics and fire history. Respondents consider a variety of factors, and there was not consensus on whether the Lookout Fire was a “natural” fire. In general, respondents who described the fire as more natural were able to come to a state of acceptance and excitement for future research opportunities sooner than respondents who described the fire as largely unnatural. This has important implications for wildfire risk communication for scientists and practitioners who want to restore fire as a natural process. While fires perceived (or framed) as natural may be more readily accepted, fires perceived as unnatural may take longer to process. Fires perceived as human-caused and especially as climate-exacerbated may be the most difficult for people to process after and during the fire, and may have the most resistance for being managed for purposes other than full suppression. 

Natural resource managers (managers) value and use scientific information to inform their decision-making process in a variety of ways. The scientific information managers use depends on a variety of factors, including the source of the information and ease of access. Barriers, such as paywalls, insufficient capacity, and information overload play an important role in determining what scientific information managers have access and attend to. Additionally, characteristics of managers themselves also influence what scientific information they prioritize and implement. Specific factors likely play an important role in how managers evaluate the utility and strength of scientific information. We examine two potential factors, (1) the number of years of the study as an indicator of research quality, and (2) the cognitive bias to prefer confirming information. We surveyed public land managers in Oregon and Washington, USA and used a 2x2 experimental design to evaluate how time frame and agreement with prior beliefs influences the perceived usefulness of scientific information and the soundness of management prescriptions for three management issues: post-fire salvage logging, variable density thinning of mature growth stands, and translocation of native species as a climate adaptation behavior. We find in general respondents equally value the results of long-term and short-term studies but prefer information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs over information that challenges them. In open-ended responses about the soundness of action prescriptions, we found across all conditions respondents were resistant to adopting a management action because of the results of the example studies. Although previous research has examined the barriers and facilitators to getting managers access to scientific information, our study highlights the ways the mere provisioning of information does not guarantee its use, as managers evaluate information in light of their pre-existing values and beliefs. Scientists, science communicators, and boundary spanners should consider what characteristics managers use to evaluate the usefulness and applicability of information when designing studies and framing and communicating results. 

The involvement of the second pair of chlorophylls, termed A-1A and A-1B, in light-induced electron transfer in photosystem I (PSI) is currently debated. Asparagines at PsaA600 and PsaB582 are involved in coordinating the A-1B and A-1A pigments, respectively. Here we have mutated these asparagine residues to methionine in two single mutants and a double mutant in PSI from Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803, which we term NA600M, NB582M, and NA600M/NB582M mutants. (P700+–P700) FTIR difference spectra (DS) at 293 K were obtained for the wild-type and the three mutant PSI samples. The wild-type and mutant FTIR DS differ considerably. This difference indicates that the observed changes in the (P700+–P700) FTIR DS cannot be due to only the PA and PB pigments of P700. Comparison of the wild-type and mutant FTIR DS allows the assignment of different features to both A-1 pigments in the FTIR DS for wild-type PSI and assesses how these features shift upon cation formation and upon mutation. While the exact role the A-1 pigments play in the species we call P700 is unclear, we demonstrate that the vibrational modes of the A-1A and A-1B pigments are modified upon P700+ formation. Previously, we showed that the A-1 pigments contribute to P700 in green algae. In this manuscript, we demonstrate that this is also the case in cyanobacterial PSI. The nature of the mutation-induced changes in algal and cyanobacterial PSI is similar and can be considered within the same framework, suggesting a universality in the nature of P700 in different photosynthetic organisms. 

One of the dominant ethics of natural resource management (NRM), and arguably Western culture, is consequentialism, which evaluates the ethical merit of decisions based solely on consequences or outcomes of those decisions. When used in NRM, this ethic is largely applied as the default, without interrogation of whether it is appropriate or useful. In this case study, we examine the intersections of consequentialism, decision psychology, and fire response in the United States. We explore how trying to maximize beneficial outcomes creates dilemmas for fire managers who must make decisions despite considerable risk and uncertainty about outcomes. Consequentialism as a guiding ethic may exacerbate risk aversion and fire suppression and ultimately contributes to a dilemma, wherein fire managers trying to reduce negative outcomes may increase the probability of negative outcomes (via catastrophic wildfire) in the long run. In place of consequentialism, we explore how virtue ethics in fire response and moral pluralism may ultimately better support the goals of risk management and positive outcomes. From this case study, readers will gain insight on the challenges of applying ethical theory to current natural resource issues, the way cognitive biases can affect decision-making, and alternative ethics to the dominant consequentialist system in NRM. 

U.S. courts have long been thought to be held in special regard by the American public, and public support is theorized to protect institutions from interbranch aggression. At the same time, recent research underscores that institutional fealty and public reaction to court curbing is shaped by partisan concerns. Drawing on a survey experiment fielded in the U.S., we evaluate whether (1) the public is uniquely punitive toward incumbents who seek to undermine a court rather than an agency and (2) the extent to which these penalties are dependent upon shared partisanship with the proposer. We demonstrate that the public is less supportive of efforts to strip judicial power than analogous efforts to strip power from an executive agency, but that this penalty for court curbing dissipates in the face of copartisanship. This substantiates previous claims regarding the role of partisanship on shaping public attitudes about high courts but underscores that the American public may still hold the courts in unique regard. 

How does the public respond to court-packing attempts? Longstanding accounts of public support for courts suggest voters retaliate against incumbents who seek to manipulate well-respected courts. Yet incumbents might strategically frame their efforts in bureaucratic terms to minimize the public’s outcry or use court-packing proposals to activate a partisan base of support. Drawing on a series of survey experiments, we demonstrate that strategic politicians can minimize electoral backlash by couching court reform proposals in apolitical language, and institutional legitimacy’s shielding effect dissolves in the face of shared partisanship. These results shed new light on how ambitious politicians might avoid electoral consequences for efforts to bend the judiciary to their will.