We conducted research in two wildfire-affected communities (see Figure 1): Pateros, in Okanogan County, Washington, and Otis, located in Lincoln County, Oregon. National analyses highlight why these communities are especially at risk. Iglesias et al. (2022) document that U. S. fires became larger, more frequent, and more widespread in the 2000s, trends that intersect with the expansion of the wildland–urban interface (Kramer et al., 2019; Caggiano et al., 2020). As a result, interface towns like Pateros and rural residential areas like Otis reflect the frontlines of broader national wildfire dynamics.

Pateros, Washington, an incorporated area, is located at the confluence of the Methow and Okanogan Valleys along the Columbia River and Highway 97. It has small but active businesses and community organizations. Most homes, older single-family structures, stretch up the hillside away from the river. Pateros has a population of 668; 46.85% are Hispanic, 42.1% White, and 4.94% Asian. The town’s economy is largely based on manufacturing and construction (27%) and agriculture (22%) (Data USA, 2025). The town and surrounding area rely heavily on seasonal agricultural labor, with many Latine residents working in orchards and farms, which are visible from the highway. In the high school and other community organizations, Spanish language signs and fliers in English and Spanish are common.

Pateros is situated at 241 m.a.s.l. and surrounded by sagebrush steppe and mixed dry conifer forest ecosystems. It has an arid climate, with annual precipitation falling as a mixture of snow and rain and averaging 406 mm, with hot summers and cold winters. The residents of Pateros reported little familiarity with wildfire and smoke prior to the Carlton Complex (2014), despite being surrounded by dry ecosystem types that evolved with fire. Sagebrush-dominated ecosystems, which typify lowland areas in Okanogan County, have fire return intervals ranging from 50 to 200 years, but upland forests burn much more frequently, often on decadal time scales, though fire suppression practices in the past century kept most fires small. The Carlton Complex was a series of four lightning strikes that ignited near Pateros in July 2014 and converged, burning 103,643 ha and 357 homes in Okanogan County. This fire remains Washington’s largest wildfire on record.

Otis (population 1,389) is an unincorporated, forested rural area that is predominantly residential, consisting mainly of manufactured homes scattered across the hillside or lining the Salmon River and Highway 18. There are two community centers, one café, a gas station, a convenience store, and a post office. Schools, social services, stores, restaurants, and most employment opportunities are in larger nearby coastal towns. Because of its rural nature, specific demographic data for Otis are lacking, but Lincoln County’s population is 10.4% Hispanic or Latino (Latine) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024a, 2024b) and 8.8% (of the total population) are of Mexican origin (U.S. Census Bureau, 2022). According to research participants, Latines resided in 10 of Otis’ 300 homes affected by the fire. According to research participants and personal observation, the town also has a large number of retirees. With few businesses or public spaces, residents and outsiders perceive Otis as quiet and undeveloped, offering limited public gathering spots—two sparsely staffed community centers, a gravel lot hosting occasional art fairs, and a hard-to-access riverbank where people sometimes fish.

Otis is situated in the Coast Range and is characterized by temperate mixed conifer rainforests with an annual precipitation of 2,484 mm and an elevation of 14 m.a.s.l. The region has mild, wet winters and short, dry summers. Fire naturally occurs on time scales of hundreds of years, often after periods of prolonged drought, thus most residents of Otis had little to no personal experience with wildfire. Because these are productive ecosystems with rapid fuel accumulation and fire-sensitive vegetation, fires can be large, high-severity, and stand-replacing. However, evidence suggests that there is extensive variability in fire frequency and size (Johnston et al., 2023). The Echo Mountain Fire (1,012 ha) occurred in Otis in September 2020, was driven by uncharacteristically high winds, and destroyed about half of the rural town’s 1,241 structures, including 300 homes. The burn-scarred landscape contrasts with the densely treed, cooler areas untouched by fire (Lincoln County Government, 2024).

Engagement with Otis residents occurred at a community breakfast and regular food bank distribution events. Attendees, mostly elderly and white, were reserved but friendly. In contrast, Lincoln City held Hispanic heritage events at its cultural center, where Latine and white residents mingled. Observations and interviews suggest an unintentional social divide between white and Latine residents, despite mostly mutual positive regard.

Our larger wildfire community recovery research sampled other geographic and ethnic communities in Okanogan County, Otis, and different communities in Oregon and California. For this paper, we selected these sites because they represent distinct yet complementary wildfire recovery contexts. Pateros exemplifies a small agricultural town with a high proportion of Latine residents who were directly exposed to Washington’s largest wildfire on record, making it analytically valuable for understanding how structural inequities shape recovery in highly affected rural communities. Otis, by contrast, illustrates a dispersed, unincorporated community in Oregon’s Coast Range where Latine households constituted a smaller proportion of those impacted, but where existing partnerships facilitated access and trust. Taken together, the cases highlight both concentrated and more diffuse Latine wildfire recovery experiences in different ecological and social settings, offering insights that extend beyond either location alone.

Research questions were designed to identify community capitals and investigate recovery experiences of wildfire-affected Latine communities (Table 1). The initial interview protocol was developed based on existing literature on disaster recovery indicators (Copeland et al., 2020; Cutter et al., 2014; Mayer, 2019) and Community Capitals (Flora et al., 2005; Emery and Flora, 2006) and was refined through a participatory process with community partners, including recovery organization employees and volunteers, wherein we discussed appropriate phrasing of questions and methods of inquiry suitable to a range of participant abilities. This approach ensured that the interview questions were relevant and culturally appropriate. Sample questions included “How did your community change due to the fire?” and “What resources or organizations helped or hindered during the recovery process?” The full interview schedule appears in the Appendix. Additionally, we used a trauma-informed approach (Hossain, 2022) to interact with and interview participants, emphasizing emotional safety and choice. For example, we allowed participants to proceed at their own pace and offered the option to skip any topics that felt distressing. The Oregon State University Institutional Review Board approved this research (HE-2024-997), including a verbal informed consent process, which better suited participants by minimizing risks related to documentation, aligning with cultural norms, and fostering trust among individuals with limited literacy or concerns about immigration-related repercussions.

Data collection in Otis, Oregon, and Pateros, Washington, occurred from January to October 2024. Research activities included focus groups and semi-structured interviews, which were held in accessible community spaces, such as local schools (after hours) and community centers. One interview and all focus groups were conducted in Spanish by the primary author who has a C1 (Advanced) Spanish fluency level; one interview was conducted by multiple authors in English with occasional expressions in Spanish. We also engaged in participant observation (in English and Spanish) at community events (e.g., Cinco de Mayo) to further understand implicit aspects of community and help triangulate the data. Participation was voluntary, with all participants providing verbal informed consent. We employed a snowball sampling strategy, beginning with key informants identified through local recovery organizations and community networks to reach Latine residents. Eligible participants were adults (18+) who self-identified as Latino/a/e or Hispanic and lived in the area before, during, and after the respective wildfire. All participants’ countries of origin were Mexico, and they spoke Spanish as their first language. In Oregon, we included residents of coastal towns near Otis (i.e., Lincoln City, Newport) because of their familiarity with wildfire impacts and because of the small sample (n = 4) of Latine residents directly impacted by the Echo Mountain Fire. The total sample (n = 35) consisted of individuals aged 30–70; 19 women and 16 men. Participants were a mix of homeowners and renters with varying degrees of wildfire impact. A subset (n = 4 in Otis, n = 1 in Pateros) of participants experienced direct fire damage to their homes or property. Details are summarized in Tables 2, 3.

We conducted three focus groups with a total of 35 participants to facilitate collective discussions on wildfire recovery experiences. Two focus groups were held in Oregon (each with 14 participants), and one in Washington (with five participants). Each Oregon focus group lasted 45 min, while the Washington focus group lasted 90 min. Sessions followed a semi-structured format with guiding questions (see Appendix) and were conducted in person at public community locations. To acknowledge participants’ time and contributions, each received a meal and a USD25 gift card.

We complemented focus group data collection by conducting two semi-structured interviews with Latine adults in Oregon to capture individual perspectives on wildfire recovery in greater depth. Interviews were from one-to-two hours long and followed a flexible structure to allow participants to elaborate on themes. Interviews followed a semi-structured format with guiding questions (see Appendix) and were conducted in person at public community locations. Lunch was provided to one participant; a coffee and a USD25 gift card were provided to the other.

Participant observation at community events and meetings throughout 2024 provided additional context on recovery efforts and social dynamics. We attended three events in Oregon—two at a community center (bilingual English Spanish) and one at a church (Spanish). We attended three events in Washington—two at community centers and one at local fairgrounds (all in English). We took observational notes, focusing on community interactions, discussions about community recovery resources, and informal narratives about personal and community challenges.

For interviews and focus groups in Otis, we recorded detailed notes by hand, while the Washington focus group was audio-recorded with permission of the research participants. Audio recordings were then transcribed and translated into English using Sonix software and manually checked for accuracy. We then applied a mixed deductive/inductive thematic coding approach based on the Community Capitals Framework (Flora et al., 2005; Emery and Flora, 2006). Coding for specific community capital strengths and weaknesses was conducted iteratively, allowing for new emergent codes to arise from the data. Community Capitals were coded as either strengths or weaknesses with nested sub (or child) codes (themes) describing salient aspects of each community capital. For example, within the Human Capital Barriers Code were subcodes describing specific human capital barriers, such as lack of knowledge or skills to assist in recovery efforts. Three researchers independently coded transcriptions and discussed differences in coding approaches until agreement was met. All transcription coding was performed using NVivo15 qualitative software (QSR International, 2023). Once broader research analysis is finalized, the codebook will be available upon request.

Organizational capital reflects voice, power, access to governance, and institutional support. Organizational capital was the most cited capital in our interviews, regarding both barriers and strengths. Organizational capital barriers included a lack of organizational capacity and assistance, lack of strong communications, issues with insurance, and unclear organizational processes (see Table 4).

A major organizational barrier was the lack of communication of fire information; residents in both towns expressed frustration that emergency alerts did not arrive in Spanish. Otis residents did not receive evacuation orders at all. One Pateros participant expressed this about alerts:

Another participant said she uses a translation app to understand alerts. Participants in both towns agreed that in the immediate aftermath of each area’s respective fire, clear communications and temporary sheltering facilities were not available. In the fire aftermath, residents of both communities said that government assistance was slow to arrive. In Pateros, no official help came following evacuation, leaving residents to provide housing and other assistance for one another. When asked if support was available during and immediately following evacuation, one Pateros participant shared,

Similarly, when asked what kind of governmental agency support there was immediately after the Echo Mountain Complex, one particularly talkative Otis resident quieted and paused to consider. She shook her head, and responded gravely,

Within a few weeks of the Carlton Complex in Pateros, participants mentioned resource distribution available informally at the school, though they did not perceive this as an officially sanctioned support. They saw this informal support as equitable and accessible, regardless of ethnicity or language. One Pateros resident noted,

In Otis, participants recalled that long-term governmental recovery efforts took nearly two years to materialize. In both towns, the perceived delay in governmental and other institutional support led residents to self-organize to meet their needs in the meantime.

In the months and years following the fires, many participants in Otis and Pateros who sought governmental assistance reported struggling to navigate the application process for aid, particularly through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 2011, 2016), which they describe as difficult to work with because of extensive paperwork, multiple denials, and a confusing process. One participant reported submitting seven applications to FEMA before being awarded any assistance. Some Otis interviewees reported that rental assistance was particularly difficult to obtain because their multi-family households did not fit eligibility criteria. Overall, many residents felt that both response and recovery assistance had been limited due to organizational capacity constraints that were present pre-fire but exacerbated post-fire (e.g., firefighting equipment shortages, service organizations closing due to lack of funds). This reflects in larger community processes, particularly in Pateros, where residents felt that their voices were not heard in funding allocations the town made to support improved road infrastructure following the Carlton Complex.

Furthermore, amidst conversations with recovery workers in Okanogan County, Latines (and immigrants from other regions) were identified as a distinct group with unique wildfire recovery needs–particularly Spanish language interpretation, though discussions on this topic were limited. Latine involvement in formal recovery or mitigation efforts were minimal—for example, none attended the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) public meeting in Pateros in 2024, which was held in English. The Pateros meeting was one of several community meetings in Okanogan County to engage the public in shaping the CWPP–a planning document for wildfire preparedness (Okanogan County, 2024; OCLTRG, 2025). However, a nongovernmental organization focused on multicultural family education in Chelan county (neighboring Okanogan county) offered wildfire preparedness courses in Spanish in 2024, and these were available online to Okanogan county residents. Similarly, Otis had an organized Latine recovery group actively addressing needs, and the county’s emergency management office recognized but struggled to meet the need for bilingual communications and multicultural engagement.

In both communities, another major challenge was the high rates of underinsurance; even those with insurance reported that payouts were often insufficient to cover rebuilding costs. One Otis participant said that even after the payout,

Another concern was the rising cost of insurance prohibited many from having adequate coverage. As one Pateros participant described,

Organizational strengths have emerged with time since the Carlton Complex and Echo Mountain Complex, demonstrating potential increased adaptive capacity to respond more effectively to future wildfire events, particularly in improved emergency response, coordinated aid efforts, and community-driven initiatives. For example, in Pateros, participants perceived the firefighting response as being significantly improved in efficiency since the Carlton Complex. Several fires have occurred since the 2014 event, and as one participant stated:

Other participants agreed that there is now better coordination among firefighting agencies, yielding a more effective response.

In Otis, while some support was provided immediately, participants indicated that the most impactful assistance emerged with time after the Echo Mountain Complex. Within two weeks of the fire, multiple aid organizations were available in a single, convenient location, allowing residents to address multiple needs in one stop. However, as one participant described, the problem with those resources was that she did not understand or believe they were for her because of the trauma of the recent fire. She said,

Her emotional state prevented her from taking advantage of immediate opportunities for help. However, this participant has taken advantage of available support in the ensuing years. One community organization, spearheaded by a Latine leader, played a key role in recovery and has since evolved to address broader community needs, demonstrating adaptability and long-term commitment to local well-being, as well as promoting a greater sense of organizational trust among Latines. This organization’s initial success may be attributed, in part, to the financial infrastructure established by a predecessor recovery group formed in the immediate aftermath of the Echo Mountain Complex. By maintaining continuity in its 501(c)(3) status—albeit under a different trade name but with the same legal and financial history—the newly established Latine organization was able to leverage the predecessor’s established organizational and financial credibility. Additionally, in Otis, various organizations coordinated well to provide assistance. Government-specific assistance, while slow to arrive, has made an impact; the county’s replacement of damaged septic systems is one example. In Pateros, participants noted that the City’s installation of pumps and hydrants was a positive organizational support. In both communities, emergency communication improved; an app provides emergency alerts (in English), and social media is a tool for sharing information.

Human capital refers to individual and collective skills, education, and health. Human capital was the second-most cited capital, particularly in Otis, with barriers such as mental health issues reported frequently.

Significant human capital barriers continue to impact recovery, particularly in terms of health issues related to seasonal smoke and air quality impacts, lack of financial self-sufficiency, and mental health struggles. Mental health challenges emerged as the greatest human capital constraint. In Pateros, residents felt the immense shock of witnessing a quarter of the town burn. One says,

Additionally, anxiety resurfaces whenever new fires occur. For example, one participant discussed a family member’s reaction a year after the Carlton Complex (2014) when the Okanogan Complex (2015) started:

From 2014 to years later, emotional reactions to the trauma continue. In both communities, residents rarely discuss mental health struggles. As one Otis resident explains:

Similarly, in Pateros, one participant explained, with nods of agreement from others:

Still, they recognize that getting mental health support can help:

In both communities, years later, trauma still resurfaces in everyday moments: a power outage during a storm caused an entire family to sleep in their living room together out of fear, while a small kitchen fire in the neighborhood prompted a child to pack an emergency go-bag. Some fire survivors turned to drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana as a coping mechanism “to forget what happened,” leading to addiction in some cases. Even years later, reflecting on the fire and the ongoing recovery process brought many to tears, showing that the emotional weight of the fire remains. Fear, both of future emergencies and of discussing mental health openly, continues to be a barrier to long-term emotional healing and preparedness for future disasters.

Both communities demonstrated human capital strengths, particularly in leadership, self-sufficiency, and mental resilience. Mental fortitude–the ability to learn and grow despite adversity–is a defining strength, particularly in Otis (Table 4). One participant shared a sentiment that resonates in both communities:

Though recovery has taken years, another Otis resident reflects,

An appreciation for adaptation and change energized community members to make a difference in their families and communities, which one said helps them avoid depression:

Community events played a quiet but essential role in mental health support, offering spaces for connection and self-care without explicitly labeling them as such—since acknowledging mental health directly might deter attendance. For example, as a result of the mental health issues of the wildfire, a grass-roots effort for a Spanish-language support group for Latina women is forming in Otis, representing a significant step toward addressing mental health needs in a culturally responsive way.

Cultural capital encompasses traditions, language, and shared identity that shape social cohesion and knowledge transmission. It can also include the “feel” of a community, evidenced by shared values, or a sense of pride, belonging, or inclusion. Cultural capital was frequently discussed in interviews (Table 4) and formed part of participants’ definition of community. For example, defining community along the lines of a shared linguistic heritage, one Otis resident shared, and others nodded agreement, that:

Both cultural capital strengths and barriers were identified. One substantial cultural capital barrier was a lack of community support systems (e.g., healthcare facilities, affordable housing and food, access to credit). One Pateros participant explained:

Accordingly, there was skepticism toward new, wealthier residents, likely linked to concerns over gentrification. Latine participants worry that they will not be able to keep up with the rising costs of living that wealthier residents can afford, thus potentially pushing them out of the few available rentals.

Other cultural capital barriers in both communities were theft and experiences of prejudice. In Otis and the surrounding area, anti-immigrant sentiment led to direct verbal attacks, though these were unusual. One Otis participant said they had heard comments like, “Go back to your country.” Additionally, within healthcare settings, doctors sometimes dismissed Latinas, reducing their health concerns to stereotypes about “overweight Latinas” rather than engaging with the real systemic and medical issues. These experiences create obstacles to a sense of belonging and inclusion, fundamental to cultural capital.

In contrast, both communities described strong cultural capital strengths rooted in a deep connection to place and shared traditions. Residents generally appreciated both areas’ tranquility, beauty, and safety. One Otis participant’s description of their community reflects cultural capital strengths:

In Otis, local events provide space for a collective history of Mexican heritage. For example, many residents attend Cinco de Mayo, Children’s Day, and Day of the Dead celebrations held at the local community center throughout the year. They appreciate the mixing of cultures and languages in their towns, seeing it as a positive aspect of community life, not a source of division. Additionally, intergenerational support is evident in the care and concern for elders during evacuation from wildfire or other hazards more generally. One participant shared:

In addition to the above strengths, each town adopted an informal slogan in the wake of their respective fires, as many wildfire-affected communities do to express solidarity: “Pateros Strong” and “Otis Strong.” Even though the messages were in English, Spanish speakers said them with pride. In Otis, signs and benches with this slogan were still visible five years after the Echo Mountain Complex. This messaging lent a sense of social cohesion and shared purpose, contributing to cultural capital in these communities.

Social capital involves relationships, networks, and trust that facilitate cooperation and mutual support, including the delivery of essential goods and services. Notably, social capital emerged only as a strength, with no significant barriers reported in either community (see Table 4). Social capital, like cultural capital, was intertwined with participants’ definitions of community. As one Pateros participant defined community:

Other Pateros residents agreed and provided examples of how individual and family needs are met through community generosity and selflessness.

Both communities exhibited strong bonding support–friends, family, and close neighbors helping one another–in the immediate aftermath of their respective fires, wherein informal networks, such as family members and friends offered clothes, food, and shelter before official aid arrived. In Otis, many residents echoed the sense that bonding support continues:

Another resident noted,

Participants directly correlated the bonding support they felt to the lack of vegetation after the Echo Mountain Complex. They highlighted how the fire physically changed the landscape—burned trees no longer obstructed views—leading to increased visibility and thus, deeper neighborly connections.

In addition to friends, family, and neighbors lending support, bridging social capital was evident in the involvement of community member volunteers working independently and through churches and community centers to organize cleanup efforts and distribute donations. For example, Otis residents staffed the local Grange to provide food and household item donations for those in need. Linking social capital was evident through institutional support such as local organizations and select governmental programs providing bilingual support and connecting residents to financial aid, housing assistance, and logistical recovery services. For example, one Otis participant said that a Spanish-speaking employee at a state-funded service organization was helping her to collect the necessary documentation and fill out an application for Oregon’s Homeowner Assistance and Reconstruction Program (HARP) assistance.

Social capital–particularly bonding and bridging–was most notable in early weeks of wildfire recovery, but some aspects of it have sustained over time. For example, though the increased connection people found among their community members in the immediate aftermath of the Carlton Complex and Echo Mountain Complex waned slightly over the years, an enduring sense of trust that one’s community (e.g., friends, family, neighbors, co-workers) will be there for them in times of crisis persists. The wildfires thus became a unifying social force. As one participant observed:

Additionally, the governmental and nongovernmental organizations providing linking social capital in the form of housing or other assistance continue to be present, particularly in Otis.

Federal frameworks such as FEMA’s Whole Community Approach and the National Disaster Recovery Framework (FEMA, 2011, 2016) have articulated important principles of equity and inclusion in disaster response and recovery. These models emphasize the need for collaborative, community-driven planning that engages all sectors of society, particularly those most vulnerable to harm. However, their implementation has often been uneven, and their influence on ground-level practice is variable—especially in times of shifting political and administrative priorities.

Our findings reveal that in communities like Otis and Pateros, Latine residents continue to face systemic barriers, including limited access to linguistically inclusive information, exclusion from formal preparedness processes, and challenges navigating aid systems. These issues suggest a persistent disconnect between the intent of national policies and the lived realities of those most affected by disaster.

Rather than focusing solely on refining federal policy, it is increasingly important to consider how core principles of equity, access, and inclusion can be operationalized at the state and local levels. For example, multilingual emergency alerts must be reliably delivered across platforms. Disaster planning processes—such as Community Wildfire Protection Plans and Natural Hazard Mitigation Plans—should incorporate meaningful language access, culturally responsive outreach, and equitable participation. Aid eligibility criteria should reflect the diversity of household arrangements in immigrant communities. Community-based mental health support programs, particularly those that are bilingual, peer-led, and trauma-informed, can provide accessible and trusted care.

Finally, sustained investment in local organizations that foster culturally grounded recovery and inclusive governance can enhance coordination, improve service delivery, and promote equity in resource distribution after disasters. These local strategies can carry forward the intent of federal and other equity frameworks, even when national implementation is inconsistent. By emphasizing these adaptable, community-based approaches, we highlight pathways for improving disaster recovery that remain relevant across changing political and institutional landscapes.