# Presentation: 709254

## Sarah McCaffrey,  Research Social Scientist
USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station
847-866-9311  ex 20
smccaffrey@fs.fed.us

**USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station**
**847-866-9311  ex 20**
**smccaffrey@fs.fed.us**

**RX 510**

- Public view of prescribed fire: What matters and why

## Fire is a Biophysical ProcessFire Management is a Social Process

## Two Main Topics1) Conventional 	Wisdom vs. 	Reality2) Social 	Marketing 

## Research Sites

## Public views and acceptance of fuels management

- Acceptability of prescribed fire, thinning, defensible space
- Perception of wildfire risk
- Role of  forest context, aesthetics, and future conditions
- Post-fire restoration dynamics

***Working with homeowners and communities***
- Effective communication programs
- Role of community leaders and neighborhood organizations
- Role of social capital

**Notes:**
Many of the results discussed here are drawn from the 18 articles in this GTR.    

## Social Marketing

- Environmental Education
- Natural Hazards

**Notes:**
Fact Sheets in Module 4 provide additional background on all of these topics.

- Risk - They don’t understand it...*(Actually they generally do, but.....)*
- Risk is a complex and subjective concept
- Risk = Probability + consequences
- Technical assessment vs. Lay assessment
- Factors to consider – timeframe, spatial extent, type of damage
- Higher risk perception does not necessarily lead to action.  It is a necessary but not sufficient condition

***CW***

- COMMON LANGUAGE

**Notes:**
One study asked participants in 15 focus groups in five different western locations to rate the wildfire risk for their area and then discuss what went into their assessment. Results indicated that, overall. participants saw wildfire risk in their area as quite high and considered a variety of issues in determining the risk.  A fairly distinct and logical pattern of risk assessment was shown.  In rough order of consideration......

1) Environmental factors – these were almost universally the first thing mentioned (“dryness, drought, brush, fuel, wind, dead trees, overcrowded trees, low humidity, lightning, topography”)

2) Ignition sources were then mentioned with emphasis being on human causes (generally stupid people) but also lightning.

3)  Then potential impact of a fire was discussed.  The stronger emphasis was on human damage (homes, lives, health) but possible negative environmental consequences were also brought up. 

## Risk Perception 

**What goes into public conception of fire risk?**
**Environmental factors ****– almost universally the first thing mentioned**
**“****dryness, drought, brush, fuel, wind, dead trees, overcrowded trees, low humidity, lightning, topography”**
**Ignition sources, ****generally people (stupid ones) but also lightning**
**Impact**
**Human – homes, lives, health,  – stronger emphasis on human damage**
**Environmental – the forest, wildlife**

## Risk Perception 

***Mary:  We aren’t allowed to burn at all at my house. ***
***Alice:  Well, you are in a canopy.   You are right there  ******	******in a canopy.  That’s one reason we didn’t buy ******	******up there, I  was terrified.  ******	******	***
***	******	******	******	******	******(Flagstaff)***** **

**Clear pattern of vicinity residents having a higher RP than interface and intermix**
**Self-selection****.....**

## Risk Perception 

**Self-selection and ****balancing benefits**

***Anne: We are a 7 risk and that’s why we didn’t sell that house, and just move away.  We ******want our kids to experience living on a piece of beautiful, beautiful land****** that is not, it is relatively undisturbed by society.  You can go out on the trail, right from your door, and ******see wildlife****** and ******be right in nature******.  So that risk is worth that........***
***Moderator:  Is having a wildfire risk of 7, is that acceptable to you?***
***Anne:  Oh, you know; you still have everything else.  Although, I guess I should ‘fess up, ******we also bought a condominium****** ******in Boulder******. (laughter) So, I have to tell you, my husband would deny this, but for me part of the fear is about wildfire.  I do not want my kids out on the street without a place to be.  So, there’s a lot of other reasons why we did it, but we have a separate home. ***
***	******	******	******	******	******	******	******(Boulder)***

**Risk Perception**

## CW

**But.....**
**80% see prescribed fire and thinning as appropriate management tools **
**Roughly 30% give strong approval & another 50% ****`****	****give qualified approval**
**Thinning generally slightly higher approval **

***CW***

- FRAMING

**Notes:**
Thinning generally has a higher approval rate.  

Indications there is uncertainty about what “vegetation modification” means
Clearly a personal matter.  Several landscape strongly influence willingness to modify vegetation.
Beliefs on the direct advantages of the practice were influential.  
“It’s hard to know what to believe.  Who is to say that keeping 30 feet around a building is going to keep that building from burning”  (Minnesota).  
Local influences. Approval of defensible space practices by the local fire department, USFS, or immediate family members is influential in intention to engage in fire mitigation activities. 
Conformity with community values:  
”If we came in here and took down a lot of trees there would have been a negative reaction from the neighbours.  I certainly wouldn’t want to do anything that would upset the neighbourhood”  (Florida).

## Complex array of factors shape  acceptance

**Notes:**
For instance:
A study of California, Florida, and Michigan residents found that a much higher percentage (91%) of California (which had defensible space ordinances) respondents had removed flammable vegetation on their property to protect their home from fire (as compared to 42-44% of Florida and Michigan respondents) and held a more positive attitude toward a defensible space ordinance (roughly 18 percent higher).  Similarly, Florida (where prescribed fire was more commonly used than the other states) had an eleven percent higher approval of the treatment than Californians and 20 percent higher than Michiganders.   

A Massachusetts study found that knowledge was the most significant predictor of support for prescribed burning. Those with some knowledge of PF were less likely to: think it was too dangerous a practice to be used or be concerned about smoke, appearance, and its  effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat.

A study of residents adjacent to National Forests in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan found that greater natural resource knowledge was associated with greater support for treatment methods and greater support and confidence in the Forest Service. 

## Understanding = AcceptanceStrong link between knowledge and support for a treatment method. 

|   | CA (%) | FL (%) | MI (%) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Removed flammable vegetation on my property to protect home from fire | 91 | 44 | 42 |
| General attitude toward defensible space ordinance (% Pos) | 92 | 72 | 68 |
| General attitude toward prescribed burning (% Pos) | 84
 | 95 | 64 |

- Understanding = Acceptance***Strong link between knowledge and support for a treatment method.****** ***

## Massachusetts:  Knowledge most significant predictor of support for prescribed burning
Those with some knowledge of PB were less likely to: 
think it was too dangerous a practice to be used, 
be concerned about prescribed fires near a home, and 
be concerned about smoke, appearance, and its  effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat.  

**Those with some knowledge of PB were *****less***** likely to: **
**think it was **_**too dangerous**_** a practice to be used, **
**be concerned about prescribed fires **_**near a home**_**, and **
**be concerned about **_**smoke**_**, **_**appearance**_**, and its  effects on **_**wildlife**_** and wildlife habitat.****  **

- Understanding = Acceptance

## Support for fuels management practices often are not directly related to reducing the fire hazard. 

**Fuels management:**** ****Forest health & wildlife habitat ****(WI, MN, MI survey)**** **
**40% rated managing **_**healthy**_** forests as the most important management issue **
**12% rated **_**reducing wildfire risk**_** as most important**

**Understanding = Acceptance  *****Ecological benefits are particularly important in acceptance***

**Notes:**
Fuels management:  The study of residents adjacent to National Forests in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan found that  40% rated managing healthy forests as the most important management issue and only 12% rated reducing wildfire risk as most important.

Defensible Space:  Not everyone will be motivated by fire risk.  Many homeowners have defensible space but often for reasons other than wildfire protection including protection from wind damage (tornado, windstorms), termites, beauty and aesthetics, and recreational values.  
“I took out 19 trees near the house; 5 big ones.  I took them out at that time to reduce the number of needles in the pool and for hurricane protection” (Florida).

## Beliefs about the outcome of a practice  influence acceptability

| Acceptance of ..... | Prescribed burning |  |  |  | Mechanical fuels reduction |  |  |  | Defensible space ordinance |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | CA | FL | MI | MO | CA | FL | MI | MO | CA | FL | MI |
| Attitude toward fuels management approach |  |       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Trust in agency with fuels management approach |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Personal importance of fuels management approach |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Outcome beliefs for : |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Cost-effective |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Risk of escaped fire | ▬ | ▬ | ▬ | ▬ | NA |  |  |  | NA |  |  |
| Negative scenery impacts | ▬ |  |  |  | ▬ |  | ▬ |  |  | ▬ | ▬ |
| Improves wildlife conditions |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Less smoke in long-term |  |  |  |  | NA |  |  |  | NA |  |  |
| Restores wildlands to natural condition |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Extracts valuable wood products |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

**Notes:**
From Winter et al.

## Prescribed Fire Acceptance - Escape

**Vogt/Winter study concern about escape was negatively related to acceptance (MI, MO, FL, CA)**
**But part of issue may be views based on a limited sample – only hear about escapes – not successes**
***The only time you hear it is always the bad fires.  I think that they *****(prescribed burns)***** are helping us a lot.  I would say approximately 5% goes out of hand.  (San Bernardino)***
***I think we need to know more.  Just like John said, if 90% of them are successful, we need to know about it.  But we just hear about the ones that aren’t.  (Reno)***

**Notes:**
He had raked needles away from his house two days before the fire due to concern over fire.  The burn had stopped where the needles stopped.

## Health problem in 1/3 of households
Utah escaped burn = still acceptable management practice but increased concern about smoke and whether it was being managed well.
Even then, only 13 percent thought smoke made prescribed fire an unacceptable tool 

**Health problem in 1/3 of households**
**Utah escaped burn = still acceptable management practice but increased concern about smoke and whether it was being managed well.**
**Even then, only 13 percent thought smoke made prescribed fire an unacceptable tool **

- Prescribed Fire Acceptance  - Smoke

## Importance in Ranking Treatment Preferences, 

- Importance in Ranking Treatment Preferences,
*(Blodgett Forest FFS Site)*

## Understand long-term trade-offs
Willing to tolerate some smoke now if believe will mean less smoke down the road
Just want warning so can make arrangements
Source of smoke can matter

- Understand long-term trade-offs
- Willing to tolerate some smoke now if believe will mean less smoke down the road
- Just want warning so can make arrangements
- Source of smoke can matter

- Prescribed Fire Acceptance  - Smoke

## Trust is important in acceptance

- Treatments generally are acceptable provided they are done by knowledgeable people, preferably locals familiar with the area
- If a practice is established, and there are high trust levels in those who are implementing the practice, acceptance will be high.
- In essence....people are willing to respect expertise but in return want their point of view and desire to be informed to be respected

**Notes:**
Vogt et al.– Trust in gov significant predictor of approval in all four sites (MI, MO, FL, CA)

## No consistent evidence that:
Longer term residents are more aware and/or active in relation to fire mitigation 
60% of moves are within county
People who own their property for a long time may have formed their notion of fire risk a long time ago and be less responsive to new information.

**Longer term residents are more aware and/or active in relation to fire mitigation**** **
**60% of moves are within county**
**People who own their property for a long time may have formed their notion of fire risk a long time ago and be less responsive to new information.**

- Demographic *CW*

## No consistent evidence that:
Longer term residents are more aware and/or active in relation to fire mitigation 
Seasonal homeowners are less likely to understand fire risk than permanent

**Longer term residents are more aware and/or active in relation to fire mitigation **
**Seasonal homeowners are less likely to understand fire risk than permanent**

- Demographic *CW*

## Permanent Vs. Seasonal Actions

| Adams County, Wisconsin | Permanent | Seasonal |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Done Since Purchased |  |  |
| Vegetation Management | 58 | 67 |
| Additional Water Supply | 19 | 13 |
| More Fire Resistant Construction | 23 | 16.5 |
|  |  |  |
| Reasons Haven’t Taken Action |  |  |
| Cost | 56 | 49 |
| Time | 26 | 47 |
| Physical | 18 | 10 |

**Permanent Vs. Seasonal Actions**

## No consistent evidence that:
Longer term residents are more aware and/or active in relation to fire mitigation 
Seasonal homeowners are less likely to understand fire risk than permanent
Rural residents have different views than urban residents

**Longer term residents are more aware and/or active in relation to fire mitigation **
**Seasonal homeowners are less likely to understand fire risk than permanent**
**Rural residents have different views than urban residents**

- Demographic *CW*

**Notes:**
the Colorado Front Range and Southern Illinois, the second most important factor for PB was forest location followed by wildfire history.  In the Chicago Metropolitan Region the two were flipped, with wildfire history second and forest history third most influential factors. 
Location of the forest was the second most important factor influencing support for mechanical thinning for Colorado Front Range and Metropolitan Chicago while wildfire history was second most important factor for Southern Illinois. 

## No consistent evidence that:
Longer term residents are more aware and/or active in relation to fire mitigation 
Seasonal homeowners are less likely to understand fire risk than permanent
Rural residents have different views than urban residents
Experience has a positive effect 

**Longer term residents are more aware and/or active in relation to fire mitigation **
**Seasonal homeowners are less likely to understand fire risk than permanent**
**Rural residents have different views than urban residents**
**Experience has a positive effect **

- Demographic *CW*

## Expect Protection, whose Responsibility?
Land Use Problem?
Insurance?

**Land Use Problem?**
**Insurance?**

*CW?*

## Overall Fire Management?

**Overall Fire Management?**

**Doing a reasonable job about communicating re prevention/mitigation needs**
**Much more confusion around issues of actually fighting fires**
**A great deal of faith in firefighting resource availability and aerial suppression**
**Fire Management = Forest Management**
**Willing to make firefighting trade-offs IF understand process - amount of planning that goes into it**
**Poor understanding of formal mission of federal agencies – ****tell us who you are, what you do, and why you are doing it, please!**

**Notes:**
Less research has been conducted looking at social issues and concerns during a fire event.  The limited research to date indicates this is an area that merits increased attention both in terms of research and in terms of agency outreach and policy efforts. 

Focus groups showed that when people are asked to assess fire management effectiveness they  primarily consider what is being done to the forest prior to a fire to minimize its potential effect.  Overall fire management is judged to be not very good because there is not enough active forest management including thinning and prescribed fire.  The need for regulating building in fire prone areas is also commonly brought up.  The only action taken during a fire that was frequently mentioned in assessing performance was  response time, particularly of aerial resources.  Respondents also clearly had a poor understanding of the formal mission of federal agencies (specifically the Forest Service) which influenced their expectations. For instance, criticism was directed at the FS for allowing houses to be built in fire prone areas.  

Participants were supportive of wildland fire use ONCE they understood the advance planning and evaluation process that underlies WFU. 
“I think that’s a no-brainer, personally.....If you already have these pre-evaluated, and you know this area can take a burn without totally destroying everything around it, that it does need to burn, because you’ve pre-evaluated it, then let it go.....”   San Bernardino

When asked for one piece of advice to give to the Forest Service on fire management the following responses were given, in rough order of frequency. 
Education – tell us who you are, what you do, and why you are doing it
Use science to make your decisions
Listen to local views – both FS and citizens
Stop listening to:  
timber interests, 
environmental groups
Thank you for the work you do
Thank you for asking us what we think

## Drunk driving
Drug usage
Smoking
HIV/AIDS
Child immunization

- Drug usage
- Smoking
- HIV/AIDS
- Child immunization

**Social marketing:**** ****Change Behavior and/or ****Social Norms**

## CommunicationProviding Info  =  Behavior Change

**Increased Awareness**

**Communication****Interactive Communication =    Behavior Change**

## Understand your audience

- Multiple audiences
- Avoid preconceived notions
- Tailor info for them
- Deal with misconceptions
- Deeply held notions can prevent someone from understanding your message (works both ways)
- Identify resource limitations

## Important techniques, but hard to accomplish

- Avoid saying what audience already knows
- Relate to what audience cares about and is interested in
- Deliver message through medium that audience uses

## Ideal Messages 

- Three types of information
- Procedural - What and How to
- Explanatory – Why
- Impact - What difference makes and how effective
- Use Simple Language
- Be Consistent
- Locally Relevant
- Ecosystem, Culture, History

## Use all the good reasons

- One reason to change a behavior or a norm is not better than others
- Different people care about different reasons

## Delivery mediums

- Mass media?
- Most effective for raising awareness levels
- Brochures?
- Effective if combined with other methods – provides people with something to refer to when interested

## Delivery mediums

- Interpersonal communication
- Most effective for promoting behavior change
- Important for complex topics – allows for questions, clarification
- Particularly with expert info sources

## Delivery Approach

- Appropriate to Audience
- Use an Information Stream
- Diverse Methods

## Media event

-   TNC invited local TV and newspaper journalists to a prescribed fire, gave them suits, and provided information.

## Roadside signs

- Drivers are reminded of land managed with prescribed fire, even after the area was burned.

## Delivery Approach

- Appropriate to Audience
- Use an Information Stream
- Diverse Methods
- Use Partnerships
- Sources People Can Trust

## Trust & Communication

| General Information Sources | No Opinion (%) | Trust-worthy (%) | Easy to Understand  (%) | Very Helpful (%) | Slightly Helpful (%) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Family and friends | 28 | 73 | 83 | 28 | 54 |
| Newspapers/ magazines | 13 | 68 | 92 | 33 | 60 |
| TV/radio programs | 10 | 67 | 94 | 36 | 55 |
| Forest Industry groups | 31 | 57 | 71 | 32 | 47 |
| Internet | 53 | 45 | 71 | 21 | 44 |
| Environmental groups | 28 | 22 | 49 | 13 | 42 |

**Trust & Communication**

**Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan**  (Shindler)

**Notes:**
Adapted from Shindler.  Sorted on % trustworthy.   Worth noting how much less trustworthy environmental groups are as an information source compared to the Forest Industry.  Also how much harder to understand env group info appears to be.
Before go to next slide note that TV radio most helpful at 36%

Bright’s Study found most important factor influencing attitudes was trust in the relevant agency to manage wildland fire.

## Trust & Communication

| Public Agency Information Sources  | No Opinion (%) | Trust-worthy (%) | Easy to Understand  (%) | Very Helpful (%) | Slightly Helpful (%) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Guided field trips to forests | 50 | 91 | 94 | 52 | 40 |
| Interpretive information at visitor centres | 36 | 87 | 90 | 38 | 53 |
| Brochures | 42 | 80 | 89 | 37 | 54 |
| Conversations with agency personnel | 46 | 78 | 83 | 50 | 39 |
| Public meetings | 41 | 68 | 75 | 31 | 53 |

**Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan**  (Shindler)

**Trust & Communication**

**Notes:**
Adapted from Shindler.  

Notable that government information sources were generally more trustworthy than any of general info sources (only family and friends would be part of this chart based on % who trusted the source  at 73%).   

Also notable guided field trips and conversations with agency personnel were most helpful of all sources including TV, both are situations which allow interaction where the respondent could ask questions to clarify and verify.

Feel free to highlight anything else you find interesting

## Trust

**Minnesota study, Gunflint Trail, *****(Nelson/Monroe*****):**** **
**Government agencies—particularly the Forest Service—had a high level of credibility. **
** **
**Much of this trust was developed through the Forest Service’s hazard reduction response to a large blowdown event in 1999. **
** **
***“******The Forest Service has done a good job at keeping the public informed and asking for input. I’ve been a critic of the Forest Service for years, but now I support them. They’ve made a 180 degree turn around.”******  ***

## Earning trust

- Agency materials should
- make a point of acknowledging and addressing questions and complaints
- demonstrate how prior activity supports a partnership
- offer to continue the conversation
- Consider using a partner that is trusted

## “I generally think the FS does a darned good job.”
“I do, too.”  
“I can tell you why, because they send us letters at my home.  They invited us to meetings to discuss every little move they made around our area where we live, what they were going to remove, what they were going to do, and if we had any comments, to come to those meetings.  And I mean way in advance.....they make themselves completely accountable to us.  Very much so.”
“The National Forest Service has been in the pockets of the wealthy and the timber industry for last 100 years.......”  Flagstaff 

*“**I do, too.”  *
*“**I can tell you why, because they **send us letters** at my home.  They **invited us to meetings** to discuss every little move they made around our area where we live, what they were going to remove, what they were going to do, and if we had any comments, to come to those meetings.  **And I mean way in advance.....they make themselves completely accountable to us.**  Very much so.”*
*“**The National Forest Service has been in the pockets of the wealthy and the timber industry for last 100 years.......”*  Flagstaff

## Picture of a Successful Program

## GTR-NC-267,   GTR-NC-257,  GTR-NRS-1