6.3.3 Psychological [Wildland Urban Interface] Types

“The Promethean defiance of the accepted gods is personified in the figure of the medieval magician. The magician has preserved in himself a trace of primitive paganism; he possesses a nature that is still unaffected by the Christian dichotomy”. Jung, 2017.

Worldviews, therein perceptions of the causations and remedies to societal and environmental problems vary greatly from one psychological type to another (Jung, 2017). Stripping Jungian theory to its foremost tenants, persons align to one of four primary psychological dispositions, or hybrids thereof, predominantly perceiving of their environment and its workings through either sensing or feeling, thinking or intuition, their lens either largely inward [introverted] or outward [extroverted] facing (Ibid). The matter thereof has profound influence on human decision-making, and especially as relates to matters as are remote in space and/or time, thus require abstract thinking. Notable authors that have explored the consequences to societal development include Alvin Toffler who, as had Jung before him, concluded there to be four primary psychological variants: Denier, Specialist, Reversionist, and Super-simplifier, which at the societal-level manifest a perpetual pushmi-pullyu effect in which Specialist and Super-simplifier embrace change, and Denier and Reversionist reject it (Toffler, 1970). Upon examining behavioral dynamics and their relation to societal development, including but not limited to the implications thereof to the environment, Virginia Postrel (1998) drew similar conclusions to Jung and Toffler, postulating persons align to a culture of dynamism or stasis, which in turn divided into subsets. However, recognizing that a book can be judged not always by its cover, Postrel observed that one of the two variants of the stasis personality-type, the Technocrat, perceives of the self as building ‘the future’, but in the pursuit thereof perceives it possible to exert such control over the environment as to mitigate unwanted environmental and other scenarios. One finds this narrative repeated time and again in the propositions of innumerable technologists, architects, planners, policymakers, and others of whom the opinions influence both the legal and financial frameworks that underpin regional, national, and global development.

Within the domain of WUI planning and policymaking, psychology and its influence on citizen behaviour prior, during, and post-fire, is a field of growing influence. While the authors applied not the theoretical lens of Jung, Toffler, or Postrel to their research, several recent papers make evident that, both within and beyond the WUI, citizenry perceptions of the risks that are presented by wildfires vary greatly. Theories that relate psychology to risk perception and response thereto include Protection Motivation Theory (Rogers, 1983) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Aizen, 1991). The former asserts that perception of risk in combination with a sense of capacity to mitigate that risk are “necessary for action to take place” (Brenkert-Smith et al, 2012). Whereas, while the latter likewise links risk-response with perception, the response is tied to subjective norms, therein governed by a sense of what is perceived to be appropriate behaviour. Within the WUI, studies suggest psychology to have a greater bearing on wildfire risk perception and response than personal and situational circumstances (Toman et al 2012). Concurring, Champ, Donovan, and Barth found that WUI “residents understood and responded differently to the same information, making risk perception as much a function of social and cultural factors as biophysical vulnerabilities” (2013, p833). Their research also found that, regardless of their psychological and demographic profile, residents usually under-estimate to risk wildfire presents to their homes (Ibid, p.835).

Echoing Toffler and Postrel’s 20th century postulations, a study by Pavelgio et al found a correlation between a higher capacity “to perceive of change or risk [within the WUI], evaluate potential impacts or opportunities” as may reside therein, and “adapt their functioning” by means of minimizing “adverse outcomes” (2015b, p.301) with “higher adaptive capacity” more generally. Further factors that have been found to influence WUI citizen behaviour prior, during, and post-fire include age and gender (Brenkert-Smith et al, 2012); place-based knowledge [i.e. awareness of fire-ecology] (Paveglio et al, 2015b; T oman et al, 2012; Jakes et al, 2007); income-level [>$100,000 positively correlated with increased risk-mitigation measures] (Champ, Donovan, and Barth, 2013); and, in respect of fire risk mitigation, the extent to which they value “privacy, perceived naturalness, shading, providing wildlife habitat, and potential aesthetic impacts” (Toman et al, 2012, p.10).

Thus, when exploring the architectural, landscaping, planning, and policy potentialities for the WUI, imperative is the need to recognize its heterogeneity extends beyond ecologies, topographies, geologies, and weather, and to the psychologies, and in turn personalities of the people to whom it is home.

>Continue to Chapter 6.3.4 here.

The thesis is also available in PDF format, downloadable in several parts on Academia and Researchgate.

Note that figures have been removed from the digital version hosted on this site, but are included in the PDFs available at the links above.

Citation: Sterry, M. L., (2018) Panarchistic Architecture: Building Wildland-Urban Interface Resilience to Wildfire through Design Thinking, Practice and Building Codes Modelled on Ecological Systems Theory. PhD Thesis, Advanced Virtual and Technological Architecture Research [AVATAR] group, University of Greenwich, London.