MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281961935 · doi:10.3390/fire5030080

Incentives and Barriers to Homeowners’ Uptake of FireSmart® Canada’s Recommended Wildfire Mitigation Activities in the City of Fort McMurray, Alberta

2022· article· en· W4281961935 on OpenAlexaffabout
Henok Workeye Asfaw, Amy Cardinal Christianson, David O T Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueFire · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveBusinessEnvironmental planningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the results of a survey that was undertaken to examine homeowners’ FireSmart mitigation practices and investigate existing incentives and barriers to uptake of FireSmart Canada’s recommended wildfire mitigation activities in the Urban Service Area of Fort McMurray Alberta. Single-family residential property owners, the large majority of whom were affected by the Horse River wildfire, were invited to participate in an online survey. A total of 496 surveys were completed, with a response rate of 38%. We found that most of the participants generally perceive a low to moderate wildfire risk to their properties: they felt there was a low chance of a catastrophic fire happening soon and/or ‘enough’ had already been done to reduce the immediate risk. Although about half of the participants searched for information about FireSmart, having information or knowledge of FireSmart did not translate into substantial adoption of recommended mitigation actions. Survey participants generally preferred and implemented more of the low-cost, low effort mitigation measures such as cutting grasses and cleaning debris, likely for reasons other than wildfire risk reduction. With regard to structural measures, we found asphalt shingles and vinyl siding were present on the majority of homes; although this was not a choice but was provided by the builder or on the home when it was purchased. Very few respondents were willing to replace their siding or roof––the cost was the single biggest factor. In addition, we identified several other factors as negatively influencing homeowners’ mitigation actions, including the tendency to shift responsibility to the municipal government and social pressure such as neighbors not being as proactive in completing FireSmart mitigation measures. Recommendations that may help promote positive wildfire mitigation behaviors are discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFireSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207