## 3 Results
### Participants' Perception Related to Wildland Fire-Induced Risks and Its Mitigation
#### 3.2.4. Views about the Placing of the Social Infrastructures  
In response to the question entitled, \"According to [PERSON] et al. 2018, we recommend that major social infrastructures may be planned at the outskirts of the communities. This may follow a design guideline to establish the parking lots facing towards the forested areas to ensure buffer zones between wildland-urban interface (WUI) and forest. Do you think that such social infrastructures, including: (i) religious establishments; (ii) athletic parks/arenas; (iii) school buildings, or community centres; and (iv) commercial entities, e.g., Walmart, Superstores, etc. ; may play a significant role in reducing forest fire-induced risks? Please briefly explain your perception under the respective figure/sketch (referred to as Figure 5 in this document).\", we noticed that at least 63 to 80% of the participants agreed (see Table 4). In general, the participants appreciated the concept of creating additional buffer zones using large parking lots between the forest and social infrastructures, which would act as safeguard/fire break for wildfire risk reduction. Moreover, in the case of wildfires that would burn forest-facing surface grass in the athletic parks and school playgrounds, the rate of burn would be significantly slow that potentially need more time to spread towards the communities. In fact, these would be substantiated in the following quotes:  
* _\"The parking may be at the closest area of the forest and keep the most vulnerable structure away from the source of fire.\",_ and _\"1 agree based on the typical building construction of my experience religious establishments and the associated open space by the parking lot creating separation. The determining factor is the building construction of the building.\"_ (applicable for all social infrastructures considered here);
* _\"For religious establishments, the model in the sketch is a buffer zone concept at the forest facing direction. It should be included as a design guideline, which will safeguard against forest fire. There should be additional message for modification to mitigate risk for existing ones. If any revision in policy is already established, it should include (if not done yet) the modifying recommendations as a sub article where possible the buffer zone and forest facing area to be created as additional safeguard. The threat of fire still exists.\";_
* _\"Athletic Park arena also follows the buffer zone to the forest facing direction as well as the parking space could be included as a buffer space.\";_
* _\"School/community centre, where the represented buffer zone concept is adequate. In general risk assessment, this buffer zone is a safeguard. To establish or introduce the safeguard, design guidelines could incorporate the concept. For existing school facilities, a modifying recommendation with this model to mitigate whatever residual fire risk existed. In case of a new facility, my opinion is'maybe' as a buffer zone. Similarly parking lots could be in between forest and the facility building as buffer space.\"._  
Despite agreements, participants also indicated several issues and quoted as:  
* _\"This can be placed outside the city or at the vicinity of the city but requires public transportation and many other infrastructures.\"_ (for athletic parks/arenas); \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Social Infrastructure**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Response (Percentage)**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Agree** & **Somewhat Agree** & **Disagree** & **Unknown** & **No Response** \\ \hline Religious establishments & 80 & 4 & 0 & 8 & 8 \\ Athletic parks/arenas & 67 & 8 & 4 & 4 & 17 \\ School buildings, or community centres & 67 & 8 & 8 & 4 & 13 \\ Commercial entities & 63 & 13 & 8 & 4 & 13 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Response summary about the placing of the social infrastructures.