Thread by @ShefJL

The notion of the ‘Wildland-Urban Interface’ or ‘WUI’ is messy and problematic. It has actively shaped the fire exclusion and suppression paradigm. Why do we still use it? What are some alternative framings? Some early morning thoughts below #wildfires

We’re slowly progressing from a colonial understanding of the ‘wilderness’ to indigenous practices of stewardship. Looking into our climate future, there can be no ‘wildland’. We now understand the need to actively steward the land & this includes living with periodic ‘good’ fire

Megafires in recent years have gone way past ‘interface’ boundary designations, burning through entire towns and urban centers. Where is the ‘interface’ exactly?

Also, smoke travels, regionally, nationally, globally, way beyond the ‘WUI’. It hovers and lingers. For days, weeks, months, years. In our homes, in our lungs. Often with chronic mental and emotional health impacts.

Designating a ‘WUI’ zone does not account for variegated environmental, social, economic and health vulnerabilities.

In terms of alternative framings, how can we move towards a place-based, historical and intersectional understanding of living with fire in the 21st C?

Wow. Good morning, everyone! Thanks for all your thoughtful comments and questions. Below, some consolidated responses and further ideas. Please add as you scroll. Really look forward to continuing this conversation with all of you.

We must take responsibility AND expect accountability. In an ideal future, we will all ‘adopt an acre’ and contribute to stewarding the land. But, we must not forget to hold the ‘major steward’ - the Federal government - accountable for the health of 58% of California’s forests.

From a disaster recovery perspective, the ’WUI’ construct focuses our attention on acres burned and homes lost or damaged. In doing so, we invisibilize people. What about the thousands of people who don’t own homes in the WUI but are still affected by fires each year?

Renters. Migrant workers. Seniors and people with disabilities living in facilities. People living on the streets and in encampments. People who don’t necessarily choose to live where they do. How do we assess their loss - of life, health and livelihood? Currently, we do not.

For the academics on this thread, let’s be clear, what I’m writing here is not ‘new’ thinking. I am connecting the dots across silos. Many scholars have reflected on the WUI. Perhaps its time for all of us to revisit discussions & contribute new insights from this year of dread

I am particularly interested in learning from environmental justice and radical planning traditions that can contribute caring and just pathways for wildfire risk reduction. Please send pointers! And if we find there isn't enough out there yet (I suspect), let's get to work.