Dodd Scott Howard 2018

Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods, the aim of the larger project was to develop a comprehensive understanding of how the 2014 wildfire season affected the health and well-being of residents in the four aforementioned communities.

In scientific research, quantitative methods refer to using numbers to find out the answer to a question, whereas qualitative methods refer to using descriptive words (i.e., experiences and opinions). This particular paper uses qualitative methodology, and it has a quantitative ‘sister’ paper to accompany it. Together, they aim to get a more all-encompassing look at how the 2014 wildfires affected Northwest Territory communities.

In the context of climate change, shifts in temperatures, extended drought conditions, and high winds are projected to increase the incidence and intensity of wildfires throughout the country (Wang et al. 2015).

Climate change has been modelled to increase the number of wildfires as well as how bad they are (in terms of heat and size, therefore having a worse effect). This is because climate change is changing temperatures, extending the amount of time with little to no water, and increasing storm and winds, all of which exacerbate wildfire.

In all communities, the most common sentiment expressed among participants as a result of living through the “summer of smoke” was a feeling of personal and community isolation. At the individual level, many participants (n = 15) spoke of how the presence of dense smoke throughout the summer meant that they were often confined to their house.

In scientific research, “n” refers to the sample size, the number of individuals being observed. In this case, n = 15 shows a quantitative example of the number of people who spoke about being and feeling isolated during wildfire smoke events.

Motivations to engage in mitigation efforts may be mixed within a community, and previous experience with a severe wildfire season may not immediately translate into the uptake of mitigation measures at the household level (McGee et al. 2009).

After a wildfire, people react differently when it comes to preparing their home for “next time”. While some people take action to make their home less likely to burn down or prepare a list of important documents to bring in case of evacuation, for example, others do not change or prepare anything.

Further research should include establishing evidence of ways to minimize people’s wildfire smoke inhalation (i.e., does reducing time exercising outside actually reduce smoke inhalation, as noted in the paper). It should also include research into solutions to mental health effects from wildfires and smoke; examples of innovations/adaptations from various communities and their respective degrees of success.

In the introduction, the authors discuss using the “vulnerability framework” described by Ford and Smit 2004 and Ford et al. 2010. I am not very familiar with this framework, so in order to understand the methodology of the study better, I could read Ford and Smit 2004 and Ford et al. 2010 or talk to someone who could explain it to me. Overall however, I found that the paper was written quite clearly and with minimal jargon.