The Public and Wildland Fire Management: Social Science Findings for Managers

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Northern Research Station 11 Campus Boulevard, Suite 200 19073–3200 Newtown Square, PA www.nrs.fs.fed.us The Public and Wildland Fire Management: Social Science Findings for Managers Agriculture f United States Department o Forest Service General Technical Report NRS-1 November 2006 The Public and Wildland Fire Management: Social Science Findings for Managers Study Sites and Methods of Papers in This Report Author(s) Title Study Sites Methods Public views and acceptance of fuels management Ryan et al. Perceptions of wildfire threat and mitigation measures by residents Massachusetts, Interviews, of fire-prone communities in the Northeast: survey results and New York Mail survey wildland fire management implications Winter et al. Residents warming up to fuels management: homeowners’ California, Florida, Focus groups, acceptance of wildfire and fuels management in the WUI Michigan, Missouri Mail survey McCaffrey What does "wildfire risk" mean to the public? Arizona, California, Focus groups Colorado, Montana, Nevada Bright and Newman How forest context influences the acceptability of prescribed Colorado, Mail survey burning and mechanical thinning Southern Illinois, Metropolitan Chicago Daniel Public preferences for future conditions in disturbed and Minnesota, Arizona Computer undisturbed northern forest sites visualizations Merrick and Vining Characteristics people consider when evaluating forest landscape Minnesota, Illinois Process tracing attractiveness: fuel management implications Hull and Goldstein Barriers to community-directed fire restoration Southern California Interviews, Document analysis Ryan and Hamin Engaging communities in post-fire restoration: forest treatments New Mexico Interviews, and community-agency relations after the Cerro Grande fire Focus groups Working with homeowners and communities Monroe et al. Communicating with homeowners in the interface about Florida, Minnesota Mail survey defensible space Toman and Shindler Wildland fire and fuel management: principles for Arizona, California, Mail survey effective communication Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Utah Sturtevant and McCaffrey Encouraging wildland fire preparedness: lessons learned from National Interviews, three wildfire education programs Document analysis Lang et al. Working with community leadership to promote wildfire Minnesota, New Telephone preparedness Jersey, South Dakota interviews Johnson Shiralipour et al. Working with neighborhood organizations to promote wildfire Alaska, Colorado, Interviews preparedness Florida, New Jersey, South Dakota, Texas Agrawal and Monroe Using and improving social capital to increase community Florida Mail survey preparedness for wildfire Fingerman Johnson et al. Defensible space in the news: public discussion of a neglected National Newspaper topic text analysis Tools that can help us understand social issues Weisshaupt et al. Using focus groups to involve citizens in resource management— Montana, Washington Focus groups investigating perceptions of smoke as a barrier to prescribed forest burning Orland and Ursavas Using computer visualizations to help understand how forests National Computer change and develop visualizations Stewart et al. The wildland-urban interface in the United States National GIS mapping United States Department of Agriculture The Public and Wildland Fire Forest Service Management: Social Science General Technical Report NRS-1 Findings for Managers November 2006 Sarah McCaffrey, Technical Editor U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Northern Research Station 11 Campus Boulevard, Suite 200 Newtown Square, PA 19073–3200 www.nrs.fs.fed.us McCaffrey, S.M., tech. ed. 2006. The public and wildland fire management: social science findings for managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-1. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 202 p. Presents key social science findings from three National Fire Plan-sponsored research projects. Articles highlight information of likely interest to individuals working to decrease wildfire hazards on both private and public lands. Three general topic areas are addressed: (1) public views and acceptance of fuels management, (2) working with homeowners and communities, and (3) tools that can help us understand social issues. KEY WORDS: Communication, fuels treatments, defensible space, wildfire management, social acceptance, education, wildland urban interface. Disclaimer Use of trade names used in this report does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Foreword This General Technical Report (GTR) provides information from social science research that grew out of three National Fire Plan-sponsored projects at the North Central Research Station. Our goal is to highlight some of the key research findings that have emerged from this research that we believe may be of interest to individuals working to decrease wildfire hazard on both private and public lands. To make the information more accessible to practitioners, we have inverted the format of traditional academic articles in which the meat is found at the end in the discussion section and conclusions. Although the diversity of study methods and research topics addressed do not lend themselves to a completely consistent presentation, articles do follow a general format: a basic introduction, key findings for managers, and, where appropriate, more detailed findings. Study background, methods, and, in several cases, literature review follow at the end of the article. Abstracts are provided as a group at the beginning of this GTR to allow readers to quickly assess topics and key findings. All articles were double blind peer-reviewed for scientific quality and accessibility. A table that summarizes the research methods and study locations of the papers and shows the range of methods and study sites is on the inside front cover. Where a study is done and who is interviewed or surveyed can influence how applicable the insights are for other locations. Articles are grouped in three general topic areas: Section 1.—Public views and acceptance of fuels management Section 2.—Working with homeowners and communities Section 3.—Tools that can help us understand social issues Many of the papers contain findings relevant to more than one topic area. For instance, Weisshaupt et al. discuss how focus groups can be used to understand public preferences, but their paper also contains useful findings about what influences public acceptance of smoke from fires. Some general patterns can be seen across papers. A significant portion of the population in the study areas supports both thinning and prescribed burning as management tools to reduce fire risk, and a majority engage in defensible space activities. The most consistent finding is that knowledge and familiarity with a management practice is associated with increased support for the practice. The most effective method of increasing public acceptance is an interactive one that engages affected individuals and communities in the management process. Not all findings completely agree. For instance, Ryan et al. suggest that voluntary defensible space practices may be easier to implement than regulatory ones. However, their research was conducted in areas with no regulations. In contrast, Winter et al. found higher approval for defensible space ordinances The Public and Wildland Fire Management | i in California where such regulations were in place but lower approval in study sites where there were no ordinances. This suggests that in areas where homeowners are unfamiliar with a practice there will be initial resistance to regulatory approaches, but as knowledge increases the resistance can be overcome. It also highlights that, although a number of general patterns can be identified across studies, local context always matters and must be taken into account in any outreach effort. Although outreach takes time, results indicate that the potential positive outcomes in terms of increased support for fuels management and for agency management are worth the effort. We hope the information in this document will facilitate these efforts and help save managers valuable time and resources. Sarah McCaffrey, Technical Editor Northern Research Station USDA Forest Service ii | The Public and Wildland Fire Management Acknowledgments This document reports research findings from three National Fire Plan projects at the North Central Research Station. The majority of the articles are based on research conducted under Sarah McCaffrey's social

Load more