Divergent approaches to resolving pressures on NRM and DRR programs: A case study of sustainable fire management training

Amanda EDWARDS, Nicholas Gill

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In the contexts of natural resource management (NRM) and disaster risk reduction (DRR), landholders are increasingly expected to take responsibility for issues which extend beyond property boundaries. Numerous programs are being developed to train landholders to meet these expectations, however the ontological underpinnings, goals and outcomes of these programs can be radically different. Using sustainable fire management as a case study, we compare a modernist approach to training, which educates landholders in the scientific and legislative aspects of NRM and DRR with the aim of persuading them towards particular decisions, with a relational framework which aims to develop new ways of knowing and being that recognises the mutually entwined trajectories of embodied humans, fire and land. Each of these programs initially appeals to different landholders but we suggest that learning styles are malleable and that training has the potential to guide not only what landholders do with their land, but also their ways of 'knowing' human/fire/land relations. We discuss the circumstances in which each program might be most appropriate and conclude by emphasising the importance of explicit consideration of these issues by training organisations, funding bodies and policy makers.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)213-221
Number of pages9
JournalGeoforum
Volume65
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

natural resources
disaster
management
appeal
funding
responsibility
learning

Cite this

@article{1d8c99268fa447f0807c4c8e362fcd09,
title = "Divergent approaches to resolving pressures on NRM and DRR programs: A case study of sustainable fire management training",
abstract = "In the contexts of natural resource management (NRM) and disaster risk reduction (DRR), landholders are increasingly expected to take responsibility for issues which extend beyond property boundaries. Numerous programs are being developed to train landholders to meet these expectations, however the ontological underpinnings, goals and outcomes of these programs can be radically different. Using sustainable fire management as a case study, we compare a modernist approach to training, which educates landholders in the scientific and legislative aspects of NRM and DRR with the aim of persuading them towards particular decisions, with a relational framework which aims to develop new ways of knowing and being that recognises the mutually entwined trajectories of embodied humans, fire and land. Each of these programs initially appeals to different landholders but we suggest that learning styles are malleable and that training has the potential to guide not only what landholders do with their land, but also their ways of 'knowing' human/fire/land relations. We discuss the circumstances in which each program might be most appropriate and conclude by emphasising the importance of explicit consideration of these issues by training organisations, funding bodies and policy makers.",
keywords = "DRR, Dwelling, Fire, Learning, NRM, Training",
author = "Amanda EDWARDS and Nicholas Gill",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.08.001",
language = "English",
volume = "65",
pages = "213--221",
journal = "Geoforum",
issn = "0016-7185",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

Divergent approaches to resolving pressures on NRM and DRR programs: A case study of sustainable fire management training. / EDWARDS, Amanda; Gill, Nicholas.

In: Geoforum, Vol. 65, 01.10.2015, p. 213-221.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Divergent approaches to resolving pressures on NRM and DRR programs: A case study of sustainable fire management training

AU - EDWARDS, Amanda

AU - Gill, Nicholas

PY - 2015/10/1

Y1 - 2015/10/1

N2 - In the contexts of natural resource management (NRM) and disaster risk reduction (DRR), landholders are increasingly expected to take responsibility for issues which extend beyond property boundaries. Numerous programs are being developed to train landholders to meet these expectations, however the ontological underpinnings, goals and outcomes of these programs can be radically different. Using sustainable fire management as a case study, we compare a modernist approach to training, which educates landholders in the scientific and legislative aspects of NRM and DRR with the aim of persuading them towards particular decisions, with a relational framework which aims to develop new ways of knowing and being that recognises the mutually entwined trajectories of embodied humans, fire and land. Each of these programs initially appeals to different landholders but we suggest that learning styles are malleable and that training has the potential to guide not only what landholders do with their land, but also their ways of 'knowing' human/fire/land relations. We discuss the circumstances in which each program might be most appropriate and conclude by emphasising the importance of explicit consideration of these issues by training organisations, funding bodies and policy makers.

AB - In the contexts of natural resource management (NRM) and disaster risk reduction (DRR), landholders are increasingly expected to take responsibility for issues which extend beyond property boundaries. Numerous programs are being developed to train landholders to meet these expectations, however the ontological underpinnings, goals and outcomes of these programs can be radically different. Using sustainable fire management as a case study, we compare a modernist approach to training, which educates landholders in the scientific and legislative aspects of NRM and DRR with the aim of persuading them towards particular decisions, with a relational framework which aims to develop new ways of knowing and being that recognises the mutually entwined trajectories of embodied humans, fire and land. Each of these programs initially appeals to different landholders but we suggest that learning styles are malleable and that training has the potential to guide not only what landholders do with their land, but also their ways of 'knowing' human/fire/land relations. We discuss the circumstances in which each program might be most appropriate and conclude by emphasising the importance of explicit consideration of these issues by training organisations, funding bodies and policy makers.

KW - DRR

KW - Dwelling

KW - Fire

KW - Learning

KW - NRM

KW - Training

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84939521018&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.08.001

DO - 10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.08.001

M3 - Article

VL - 65

SP - 213

EP - 221

JO - Geoforum

JF - Geoforum

SN - 0016-7185

ER -