Legal, ethical and social complexities of mandatory evacuation orders during California wildfire disasters

Population deconcentration has resulted in rapid development in the outlying fringe of metropolitan and rural areas. This demographic change has increased the size of the wildland-urban interface, the area where structures and development meet or intermingle with the undeveloped wildland. Expansion of the wildland-urban interface in recent decades has created an environment in which fire can readily move between structural and vegetative fuels. This expansion has resulted in increased threat to people, property and the environment, which has significant health, planning and policy implications. In California, officials often order mandatory evacuations because it has been viewed as a straightforward solution to decreasing risk to wildfire-threaten populations. In many places, however, lack of resource availability, changes in the geography of risk and growing dissention among homeowners have challenged this approach. Given the increased cost, size and difficulty of fighting wildfires in recent years, authorities are at a crossroads in managing the wildfire threat to people in the US and aboard. To better understand these challenges, this presentation will examine the legal, ethical and social complexities of ordering mandatory evacuations during wildfires. This analysis will focus on: 1) public-private tensions of authority; 2) coercive tactics or penalties that could be imposed; 3) responsibilities for provisions of adequate egress and shelter; 4) rescue or assistance obligations to those that fail to comply; and 5) alternative strategies to mitigate risk. In turn, these perspectives provide an opportunity to shed light on evacuation behavior for other emergencies and disasters.