Project Overview
Project Description
We are confronted with two urgent issues emanating from the climate crisis: catastrophic wildfire and mitigation of climate warming impacts. Both issues need immediate attention. We are failing in our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (UNEP 2022). Not only are greenhouse gas emission reductions too small, but the inverse, enhancing carbon draw-down opportunities, remain largely academic discussions rather than implemented actions. Land ecosystem conservation and sustainable land management practices could provide > 30% of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration needed to keep global warming to < 2 °C through 2030 “(Erb et al. 2018; IPBES 2019; Seddon et al. 2020). The removal of CO2 from the atmosphere through land conservation, restoration, and management is grossly underutilized but of increasing interest because of both economic and ecological imperatives. While the contribution to this climate solution is a smaller percentage than that needed by emission reductions, this is something the public can authorize and initiate now. Further, these can be stakeholder-initiated or and stakeholder-involved projects, factors that can alleviate stress associated with climate anxiety (Clayton 2020; Wu et al. 2020).
We define enhanced natural climate solutions (ENCS) as activities that can be coordinated to increase carbon drawdown and permanence on land while improving livelihoods and the provision of natural resources and essential ecosystem functions, especially in vulnerable communities and regions. (Silva et al. 2022). We agree with previous assessments that suggested that natural processes alone are unlikely to achieve what is needed in this decade (Anderson et al. 2019; Brown et al. 2019; Schlesinger and Amundson 2018; Schlesinger 2022). This is particularly true in our region where catastrophic fires have uncertain, long-term effects on forest carbon storage in the coming decades (Pellegrini et al. 2022) and carbon sequestration is potentially moisture limited. Therefore, our vison for ENCS focuses on interventions to accelerate carbon drawdown and/or increase the storage of C on land, while improving biological conservation and economic sustainability. We emphasize that these actions are synergistic but at present poorly understood by many stakeholders, a factor that can limit the speed at which ENCS are implemented.
What is Actionable Science and Co-production? (definitions obtained from web search)
Actionable science is research that is done with the needs of a specific end-user in mind, such as natural and cultural resource managers, policy professionals, community leaders, and other local decision makers. It represents a broad continuum of interaction styles between scientists and stakeholders, with traditional science methods at one end of the spectrum and knowledge co-production, a highly collaborative process with continuous engagement, at the other.
Find ways to get involved and for volunteer opportunities here!
Co-production is a form of knowledge production based on the dynamic interaction between technology and society; where technical experts and other groups come together, with their different ways of viewing and analyzing the world and, in the process, generate new knowledge and technologies. It has a long history, particularly arising out of radical theories of knowledge in the 1970s and, beyond science and technology studies, is often applied to public services and administration and forms the basis of participatory development.
What is the highest priority outcome this project?
This work can address, quantify, and reduce wildfire risk with co-benefits for biodiversity and carbon management. We can connect with our community to understand barriers to collective action for fire risk reduction, and bridge agency and academic perspectives with homeowner concerns.
Why is this problem significant?
Climate change is bringing megafires to Colorado, with loss of life and billions of dollars in economic loss for even a single fire (e.g, Marshall Fire = $2B+). While we prepare to take some dramatic steps to save our communities, we must also be careful to safeguard biodiversity and ecosystem services. Now is the time, as recent fires have spurred most of the Front Range communities to update their Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs), which contain the wildfire risk reduction implementation instructions (i.e., marching orders) for addressing fire.
Why will this problem benefit from inclusion of research?
We have major information gaps on how fuel mitigation efforts, prescribed fires, and fire suppression activities alter fire frequency, fire severity, carbon stock and flux, and biodiversity; moreover, how do these relationships vary among habitats and locations (e.g., forest vs grasslands; WUI vs backcountry) and will an even hotter and drier future shift us into a new paradigm? Where do we resist, accept, and direct these changes? Community engagement and statistically valid surveys can gauge community sentiment and acceptance of management strategies and can help shape messaging to enhance public participation.
What are key questions that this project will help answer?
1).What are the barriers, including equity issues, to collective action in the community? 2) What are the biodiversity and carbon implications of wildfire fuel treatments proposed for the Front Range? 3) Can we develop a local marketplace related to carbon emissions avoidance and carbon drawdown? 4) Can we engage stakeholders in volunteer programs designed to address our priority goals?
