## 3 Results
### Participants' Perception Related to Wildland Fire-Induced Risks and Its Mitigation
#### 3.2.1 Views about the Characteristics of 30 m Buffer Zone  
In response to the question entitled \"[PERSON] et al. 2018 had observed the existence of forest (fuel for the fire) within the 10-30 m (i.e., about 30-90 feet) from the WUI as shown in the figure below (referred to as Figure 3 in this document) (i.e., blackish tone of the burned forest) near the Abasand and Beacon Hill communities. Thus, we may infer that the zone of 30 m buffer from the WUI should have very little to no existence of forest/vegetation to reduce the propagation of wildland fire into the communities. Do you agree with this statement? Please briefly explain your opinion.\", we found that at least 63% of the participants agreed with the statement (see Table 1). Once the participants agreed, they also explained the importance of having no vegetation in the 30 m buffer zone. In this case, they emphasised the fact that it would reduce wildfire-associated risks by clearing the fuel (i.e., vegetation), which would be critical to initiate wildfires and their potential spreading towards the built-up area. Some of the noteworthy quotes were:  
* _\"A 30 m buffer is consistent with other environmental offsets between urban development and natural settings.\";  
Figure 4: Relevant authorities removed vegetation between 30 and 70 m buffers from the WUI to protect the structures in the nearby Timberlea community (**a**), and existence of dense vegetation as shown in reddish color within 10 to 70 m from the WUI after the 2016 HRF event, and it was identified as vulnerable areas (**b**). (Source: ©[PERSON] et al. 2018 licensed under CC BY.).  
Figure 3: Existence of forest within the 10–30 m from the WUI, where the blackish tone indicates burned forest near the Abasand (**a**), and Beacon Hill (**b**) communities. (Source: ©[PERSON] et al. 2018 licensed under CC BY.).  
* _\"That (30 m buffer) would reduce the fuel, which is an important part in starting and developing wildfires. You can build a path with certain width, and also you can use fire resistant materials in structuring the paths.\"_;
* _\"It was determined that 30 m is the minimum distance to achieve in order to achieve any benefit reducing the thermal transfer of heat.\"_  
Despite agreeing with the suggestion, several participants pointed out two issues: (i) the 2016 Horse River Fire jumped over the Athabasca River, which was having a width greater than 30 m; and (ii) some landowners or developers would prefer to keep green vegetation close to their properties for beautification upon not following the FireSmart guidelines. Additionally, we also observed some disagreements, quoted as follows:  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Response** & **Percentage** \\ \hline Agree & 63 \\ Somewhat Agree & 4 \\ Disagree & 12 \\ Unknown & 4 \\ No Response & 17 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Response summary about the characteristics of 30 m buffer zone.  
Figure 5: Parking lots and/or surface grassland facing towards the forested areas of major social infrastructures, including: religious establishments (**a**), athletic parks/arenas (**b**), school buildings (**c**), and commercial entities (**d**).  
* _\"I think this is small enough distance. 200 m I think can be considered safe considering the forest height is below 10 m at the edge of the forest.\";_
* _\"No, in the case of the 2016 fire, it was creating its own systems. It sent a heat wave first and that is was caused some of the damage in Beacon hill especially.\"_