Forest-Fire Prevention Knowledge and Attitudes of Residents of Utah County, Utah, with Comparisons to Butte

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 034 603 RC 003 799

AUTROR Christiansen, John R.; And Others TTTLF Forest -Fire Prevention Knowledge andAttitudes of Residents of Utah County Utah, With Comparisons to Butte County, CaliforTCA INSTTTUTTON Brigham Young Univ., P_ovo, Utah. Coll. ofSocial Sciences. zEPORT NO SSR-Bull-5 PUB DATE 69 NOTE 15p.

EDRS PPTCF EDRS Price MF-$0.25 HC-T0.85 DESCRIPTORS *Attitudes, *Conservation Education, *Fire Protection, Fire Science Education, Forestry, Information Needs, Land Use, *Natural Resources, Outdoor Education, *Recreation, Tables (Data) IDENTIPIERS California, *Utah

ABSTRACT The use of land for outdoor recreationis becoming more and moreimportant, and the increased use of the landhas raised the risk of man-caused forest fires.The purposes of this study were (1) to determine the kinds and numbers ofvisits that people are making to public forests,(2) to identify the socialcharacteristics of forest users, (3) to measure the amount of informationpeople had about preventing forest fires,(4) to discover how people obtained reliable information about forest-fireprevention, and (5) to recommend more effective programs for fireprevention on the basis of the information obtained in thestudy. A sample of 901 persons were interviewed in Utah County, Utah, and theresults were compared to a similar study conducted earlier in Butte County,California. Recommendations for more effective fire-prevention programsincluded additional research, education, andinformation programs. (DK) riN MIS 10M1111 MS Ka KNOWN tigItY as mans INN III CO MOM ONNIVAINNI 011111110111 II. MINIS a WIW 01 WINN VAS N Not IMISSOLY MUM OffICIAl Offla Of WAN 4. POSITION Olt NUM cFOREST-FIRE PREVENTION KNOWLEDGE Ca AND ATTITUDES OF RESIDENTS OF UJ UTAH COUNTY, UTAH, WITH COMPARISONS TO BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

John R. Christiansen, Wiliam S. Folkman, J. Loraine Adams, and Pamela Hawke:

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH BULLETIN

Number 5

Department of Sociology College of Social Sciences Brigham Young University and Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station

U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service t 1969 02 O O ABSTRACT A representative sample, consisting of 901 persons, was interviewed in Utah County, Utah, to determine the characteristics of forest users. These characteristics were related to the population's knowledge and attitudes regarding the forest resource and its protection from fire. Comparisons were made with a similar study conducted earlier in Butte County, California. Nearly eight out of ten of the Utah County residents had visited a National Forest at least once during the year p the study. Frequency of such visits was related to age, sex, manta status, education, occupation, income, and residence. Knowledge about fire prevention was higher among the Utah population than among the comparable Californians. Frequent forest visitors, especially hunters and fisherman, scored better than average on the knowledge test. Although few felt forest fires presented a serious threat to themselves or their property, most felt keenly the danger to public forest property.Responsible attitudes were particularly characteristic of older, urban-dwelling, fire-experienced, authority- tolerant, and fire-knowledgeable persons. Television, radio, and newspapers were mentioned in that order as mass communications sources of forest-fire knowledge. Smok72ear was by far the most frequently remembered item from communications. Recommendations from the study for developing effective fire prevention programs include recognition that such programs must be geared to all of the people. Special attention should be given to active users of the forest who are ill-informedand poorly moti- vated regarding the use of fire. Stress should be placed on the fact that the National Forests are their forests. Forest personnel should demonstrate this fact by their attitude and behavior. Forest-Are Prevention Knowledge and Attitudes of Residents of Utah County, Utah, with Comparisons to Butte County, California

John R. Christianson*, William S. Folbnan**, J. Loraine Adams*, and Pamela Hawke:*

INTRODUCTION Societal changes in the Unitedgest, fastest-growing group in the States are having a dynamic impactlabor force; people are moving away on the use and management of ourfrom farms and small towns to the National Forests. Whereas only a fewbig cities and suburbs; and Ameri- decades ago most of our public forestcans are taking more timefor recrea- land was in a custodial state, todaytion, particularly outdoor recreation. we are seeing a rapid implementa- Although, fortunately, risk does tion of the multiple-use-concept. not increase proportionately with use, The multiple- use - concept involveswiththeincreasing numberof the coordinated and harmonious, man-persons entering the national forests agement of uses and resources suchfor recreational purposes, the risk of as forage, recreation,timber, water,man-caused forest fires has increased. and wildlife. This fire risk has been heightened Use of land for outdoor recreationeven more by the use of forest lands is becoming increasingly important.by an expanding number of workers Expenditures of public funds for out-as well. Workers come into the wild- door recreation have risen from 553land areas not only for traditional million dollars in 1951 to 1,151 mil-occupational uses of the forests, but liondollars in1960.1 The totalfor construction of power lines, tele- number of people who engaged inphone and television facilities, high- sport fishing and/or hunting in-ways, and water conservation pro- creased from 30,435,000 in 1960 tojects. 32,881,000 in 1965.2 In 1965 the ex- With the rise in forest-fin risk penditures of these sport fishermenthere has been an increase in re- and hunters amounted to $4,046,-search and development designed to 000,000 or $123.06 per person.3 prevent and control forest fires. Both The increased demands upon the Department ofSociology,Collegeof public forest lands for recreational SocialSciences, Brigham Young Uni- purposes result in partfrom the venity, Provo, Utah. changing characteristics of this coun-**Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Ex- ri tStation,Forest Service, U.S. try's population. Among the most rtment of Agriculture,Berekeley, pertinent of these changing charac- ifornia. teristics are the following: nearly 'U.S. Bureau of, the Census, Statistical every other personin the country isAbstract of the United States: 1967. (88th edition.) Washington, D. C., 1967, p. 210. less than 28 years of age; personal 'Statistical Abstract of the U.S.: 1967, p. income and living standards are ris- 211. ing for the majority of citizens; 'Statistical Abstract of the U.S.: 1967, p. white-collar Americans are the big- 212.

3 engineering and behavioral researchforest fires and their attitudes con= have been employed. Engineeringconducted in Utah County, Utah, re- research experiments with firere-garding, forest fire prevention know- tardant sprays, for roadsides, fire-ledge, and attitudes; and, where pos- proofing practices in campgrounds,sible, to compare the Utah findings clearing of fuels from around forestwith those previously reported from residences, and other practices haveCalifornia.' More specifically,the resulted in improvedmeans of modi-principal purposes in both studies fying the environment to reduce firewere fivefold: (1) to determine the hazard. Research into social factorskind and amount of visits that people in fire prevention has beenconcernedwere making to public forests, (2) to with, among other things, theprac-identify the social characteristics of tice of woods burning in the South,people who were making thesevisits, and, in California, the identification(3) to measure theamount of infor- of persons whomay present a rela-mation people had about preventing tively high fire-threat to forests. 4Follanan, William S., Residents of Butte County, California: Their Knowledge and Purpose of Study Attitudes Regarding Forest Fire Prevention, U.S. Forest Service Research Paper PSW- 25, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Ex- The purpose of this bulletin istoperiment Station, Berkeley, California, 1965. report some fin s from a studycerrung doing so, (4) to discover how

1:31111111111111/

Canyon south of Timponuks.

4. people obtained reliable informationNumber and Kind of Visits about forest-fire prevention, and, (5)Made to National Forests to recommend more effective programs for fire prevention onthe basis To ascertain the degree and nature of the information obtained in theof the threat to public forest lands studies. presented by people it is necessary to The study was a joint endeavor ofknow, among other things, the kind Pacific Southwest Forest and Rangeand amount of activity inwhich Experiment Station and Brighampeople engage in national forests. Young University, with most of the As shown in Table 1, the number financial costs being met by theof visits to national forests by Utah former. County residents to wildland areas was somewhathigher than that of. Butte County residents. Nearlynine Method of Study out of ten of the UtahCounty residents had visited the national forests In both Utah and Butte Counties prior to a representativesample of the resi-at least once during the year dent population was interviewed totheir being interviewed. This find- obtain the data for the studies. Aning suggests = that such visits are im- area-sampling design was developedportant to a large percentageof resi- in both counties to provide represent-dents of Central Utah. Moreover, it ativeness for all age groups 14 yearssuggests that those havingthe re- of age or over and not just householdsponsibility for the preservation and heads. In Utah County the sampleoptimum use of these forests in this consisted of 901 persons, whereas inarea must be concernedwith the atti- Butte County there were 761 re-tudes and behavior of the great ma- spondents. jority of the people and plan accord- in gly. Nonresponse did not seem to effect Utah County residents' participa- the representativeness of the sample.tion in outdoor recreational activities Less than 2 percent of potential re-was similar in many respectsto that spondents in Utah County refused toof Butte County residents and also to participate in the study, while lessthat of people elsewhere in the West than 4 percent of those in Butteand throughout the United States County refused to participate. Com-(Table 2). paring data on age, marital status, The percentage of people who en- grades of school annpleted, and in-gaged in fishing and picnicking was come from thesamples with thrabout the same in all areas (Table 1960 population census indicated that2). In Utah and Butte Counties a a dequaterepresentativeness washigher percentage of the people went camping, hiking, and huntingthan achieved. did those in the West or inthe Trained interviewers were used inUnited States generally. Participation the field work for the study. Lettersin hunting was particularlyhigh were mailed topotential respondentsamong Utah Countyresidents, while in the Utah County study explainingsightseeing and hiking were consider- the purpose of the study and givingably less than among the California an approximate timewhen the inter-population. viewer would visit the respondent for Some activities are considered to the interview. present a greater threat toforests

5 than others, because firesare an in-ests, it is necessary to know as much herent part of them. In this regard,as possible about the people who visit Utah County residents were asked tothe forests, to know what theygen- specify the activities in which theyerally do in the forests, and whether had engaged during the pastyear inthey use fire in doing it. national forests which involved the Slightly less than one-half (44per- use of a campfire. As shown in Tablecent) of the Utah County respond- 3, these questions revealed thataents had visited the national forests higher percentage of people hadten or more times in the year prior to made campfires in connection withtheir being interviewed. These "fre- camping than any other activity.quent visitors" had social and eco- When the principal activity of peoplenomic characteristics whichwere dif- is camping, regulations can be estab-ferent from the remaining 56 percent lished which may be "fireproofed"of the respondentsthe "lessfre- through clearing brushaway fromquent visitors." Detailed data con- the area, building fireplaces, andcerning each of the characteristics other means. Such fireproofingisdiscussed below are given in Appen- equally useful for picnicking. Hunt-dix Table 1. ing and hiking, however, maypose an even greater fire threat to forestsAgeThe "frequent visitors" tended owing to the, fact that hunters andto be younger than the "less frequent hikers frequently travel wellawayvisitors." Their average (median) from main roads and protectedareas.age was 31.7 compared with 51.7 for As previously shown in Table 2,athe "less frequent visitors." Perhaps greater percentage of all people en-thisfindingreflectsthegreater gage in hunting than engage inphysical activity ofyounger people camping in the national forests inas well as the emphasis on out-of- Utah County. Thus, while campfiresdoorslivingcurrentlyinvogue are not associated with hunting asamong the youth. frequently as theyare with camping,SexIt was expected that the "fre- more fires may be used in huntingquent visitors" to national forests activities in places thatare relativelywould be comprised of a higherpro- unprotected. portion of males than females. Most In summary, fire-prevention planswildland activities traditionally have and programs for Utah County resi-been identified as masculine activi- dents should incorporate the infor-ties. This expectation was reinforced mation that (1) nearly all of themby the earlier finding that the "less visit national forests each-year, (2)frequent visitors" were olderand sightseeing, picnicking, fishing, andwomen tend to live longer than men huntingin that order--are theac-and the observation that sightsee- tivities most- commonly engaged in,ing, picnicking, fishing, and hunting and, (3) firesare used more thanthe latter two being physically de- half of the time bycampers, picnick-manding activitiesare the activities ers, and hunters. most often engaged in on national forest lands. While no sex differences Characteristics of Frequent were expected- relative to participa- Visitors to National Forests tion rates for sightseeing and picnicking, it was supposed that males would To adequately plan fire preventionengage -in fishing and hunting more and other programs for national for-frequently than females. Thisexpec-

6 1,1

itit Recreation in forest lands. tation was confirmed. With malesstatus and frequency of forest visits making up .45 percent of the totalpertained to the widowed, divorced, sample, they comprised 50 percentor separated. Three times as many of the "frequent visitors" and 41 per-people who were widowed, divorced, cent of the "less frequent visitors."or separated were in the "less fre- This finding was similar tothatquent visitors" category as were in found in Butte County, California. the "frequent visitors" category. Of Marital StatusIt was expected thatthe "frequent visitors," 16 percent a disproportionate number of singlewere single, 79 percent were married, persons would be in the "frequentand only 5 percent were widowed, visitors" category, primarily becausedivorced, or separated. of factors related to the relativelyYears of School CompletedAs was young age of unmarried persons suchobservedinButte County, Utah as a penchant for outdoor, vigorousCounty residents who had completed activity, and a lack of ties to tiamilyhigh school or college tended to fre- and jobs. Analysis of the data showedquent the national forests more than that single persons did, in fact, tendthose who had some high school to be disproportionately representedtraining or grade schooltraining in the "frequent visitors" category.only. In general, however, the dif- However, as in Butte County, theference in educational attainment be- significant finding regarding maritaltween "frequent" and "less frequent"

7 visitorswassmall.averaging.4to be "less frequent visitors." How- school years completed. ever, this relationship was so small Occupational StatusIn Utah Coun-as to be relatively unimportant in ty. employed people and studentsdistinguishingbetween"frequent" and "less frequent!: visitors tended to be "frequent visitors"to to the na- national forests. Retired and disabledtional forests. persons and housewives were "less Relationshipsbetweenparticipa- frequent visitors"more often. thantion in specific activities in national not. Part-time workers were evenlyforests and various social andeco- divided between "frequent" and "lessnomic characteristicsare similar to frequent" visitors. This findingcor-those shown to total activity (Table roborates asimilar observation in4). Generally, those Utah County Butte County. residents who were relativelyyoung, wealthy, well-educated, male, single, OccupationThe most "frequent vis-employed as craftsmenor in similar itors" found in Utah Countywerejobs, were those most likelyto par- professionalworkers,followed byticipate in camping, hiking, hunting, craftsmen and operatives. "Less fre-etc., in the national forests. Thereare quent visitors" were most likely tomany exceptions to this generaliza- be farmers or sales workers.Man-tion however. When, values shown in ager-proprietors, clerical workers,ser-Table 4 range from .10 to .98, itmay vice workers, and laborerswere aboutbe concluded that the socio-economic equally divided between "frequent"item considered doesnot clearly dif- and "less frequent" visitors. ferentiate between participants in the In Butte County, manager-propri-acti. .Thus, for example,concern- etors were found to be most active ining the socio-economic item "migra- the wildlands, followed by laborers,tory status" and the activity of pic- craftsmen, and professional workers.nicking, Utah County residents of less Farm,2rs and service workerswerethan one year were notany less Or found to frequent the wildlands leastmore) likely to have picnics in the in California. national forests than residents of 10 Family /ncomeFrequency of visitsyears or more. On the other hand, if to national forests is positivelyre-the values shown in Table 4range lated to the total income of families.from .001 to .05, the amount of acti- The higher the total family income,vity is related to the socio-economic the greater the likelihoodthat thecharacteristic. Concerning "previous respondent from that family wouldresidence" and hunting, for example, be a "frequent visitor"to the nationalthose residents who had previously forests. The only exceptionto thislived in an open countryarea were generalization occurredamong peoplethe ones most likely to participatein inthehighestincomecategory,hunting in national forests. $15,000 per yearor higher. Members of families with this income tendedKnowledge about Fire Prevention to be "less frequent visitors." Knowledge about fire prevention ResidenceA slight tendencywasand fire behaviorwas measured by noted for nonfarm residentsof theasking respondents 12 questions.In open country, and small town resi-Appendix Table 2, theresponses of dents to be "frequent visitors," andUtah County residentsare shown for city dwellers and farm residentswith those from Butte County.

8 In most of the questionsconcern-would be expected to know themean- ing forest-fire knowledge,a highering of this term. percentage of Utah County residents Throughout the United Statesgen- correctly answered the questions thanerally 90 percent of forest firesare did Butte County residents. Thereman-caused; whereas in Utah only was usually a 5 to 15 percentage65 percent of the fires areman- point difference between the Utahcaused. This finding suggests that Countyresidentsand theButteperhaps one reason the incidence of County residents. However,on someman-caused fires is relatively low in questions the percentage differencesUtah is that knowledge of forest-fire were much greater. This was true forprevention is relatively high. Other the questions on correct method ofreasons that may account for the putting out a fire, and concerning therelativelylow incidenceof man- meaning of "watershed." The differ-caused fires in Utah include the fol- ence was particularly large regardinglowing: (1) types of fuels, weather the question on the meaning ofdifferences and length of fire season, "watershed." This latter difference(2) the relative frequency of thun- is perhaps explained by the fact thatderstorms in highly forested areas Utahns, living in a reclaimed desertwith attendant lightning fires,(3) area, are particularly dependent up-the relatively high participation of on watersheds, use the term fre-Utah boys in the Boy Scouts of quentlyincommunications,andAmerica programs which emphasize

,:,

...... M.

Lodge Pole Campground.

9 conservation (Within the area cov-Lions. however. knowledge about for- ered by the Utah National Parksest fires was not associated with the Council of the B.S.A., 93 percent ofuse of mass media, with the excep- the boys of scout age are registeredtion of newspaper reading. Thus. no with the B.S.A.), (4) understandingstatisticallysignificantdifferences of the national forests as being water-were observed in the fire-knowledge sheds upon which most of the peoplescores of people who watched tele- of the state depend for water. (5) thevision, listened io radios, and read relatively low incidence of theusemagazines in varying amounts of of cigarettes owing to the religioustime. However, fire-knowledge scores values of the majority of the state'stended to be higher for those respond- population. and (6) effectiveness ofents who read two or more news- fire-prevention programs. papers than for those who did not! The mean percentage scored by Utah County residents on all 12ques-Attitudes Toward Fire Prevention tions in the knowledge inventorywas 81 (Table 5). From this table it can Attitudes are difficult to measure. be seen that those people whowere inIf they can be measured, however, the national forests relatively oftenthey are useful in predicting be- tended to answer the questionscor-havior. An attitude might be con- rectly only slightlymore than didsidered as, "the thought that precedes otherpeople.Those people whothe act." worked in the national forests did To obtain information concerning somewhat better on the inventorythe importance of forest-fire preven- than those who did not. Themeantion to residents of Utah and Butte score of hunters and fishermen wasCounties, they were asked to indicate nearly perfect (96 percent) and wastheir agreement with the following markedly higher than participants instatement: "Forest-fire danger in this any other activity. area is highly overrated." The per- In addition to the characteristicscentage responses to this statement mentioned, level of living waspo._ are given below: tively associated with knowledge of 'Further details concerning this aspect of forest fire prevention. That is, peoplethe study may be found in Adams, Jesse who wererelatively"well-to-do"Loraine. Association Between the Use of were found to possess somewhat moreMass Media and Forest-Fire Prevention Knowledge of Utah County Residents, un- accurate knowledge about forest firespublished master's thesis, Brigham Young than others. Contrary to expecta-University, Provo, Utah. August 1966.

Response Utah County Butte County (N=901) (N =761) Strongly agree 1.1 2.0 Agree 5.3 5.4 Undecided 14.1 18.4 Disagree 65.7 56.2 Strongly disagree 13.8 16.3 Don't know, or no answer 1.7 100.0 Percent 100.0 Percent *Tabulated with the "Undecided?'

10 Adding together the "disagree" and To determine the extent to which the"stronglydisagree"responsesa threat to their personal property gives the total of those who definitelymay be felt by residents of Utah and think that the forest-fire danger is&Ate Counties,respondents were not highly overrated. Approximatelyasked: "How much danger do you 80 percent of the Utah County andconsider your home to be in from 73 percent of the Butte County resi-forest fires?" A percentage distribu- dents share this opinion. tion of their responses is given below:

Response Utah County Butte County (N=901) (N = 761) Serious danger 5.1 3.9 Some danger 18.9 18.9 Little or no danger 75.9 77.4 Don't know, or no answer .1 .1 100.0 Percent 100.0 Percent

The responses to this question areIt can be seen that about 97 percent almost identical for Utah and Butteof the respondents are bothered "very County residents. About one-fourthmuch" or "much." By summing the of them expressed their opinion thatresponses of "little," "very little," their homes were threatened by for-and "not at all," it may be concluded est fires. that about 3 percent of the respond- The responses to these questionsents had attitudes which offer little suggest that the majority's opiniontoward preventing forest fires. about forest fires being threats de- Similarly, 95 percent of the re- rives more from a feeling of concernspondents indicated that they were for the property of others or publicbothered "very much" or "much" property than from a feeling of con-when they learn that forest fires cern for their own property. were started by careless campers. That the majority of Utah County Questions designed to reveal what residents have rather keen feelings ofkind of action respondents believed responsibilityfornationalforestthey ought to take and actually might lands was revealed in this study. Fortake if exposed to a fire situation example, responses to the question,provide so tae indication that nearly "How much does it bother you to seeall of them would take some positive someone flip a burning cigarette ontoaction to put it out. The questions the ground in a national forest?"asked dealt with a hypothetical situ- were tabulated as follows: ation: Response Percentage Suppose that you are driving (N=901) past a vacated campground in a Very much 76.8 national forest and notice a fire Much 20.0 small enough that you might be Little 2.2 able to put it out is burning to- Very little .6 ward a hillside covered with dry Not at all .4 grass and timber. What do you think you ought to do under 100.0 Percent ordinary circumstances?

11 Responses were as follows: trary. people who were younger, divorced (or widowed or separated). Responses Percentage mobile,hostiletoward authorities. (N=901) unaware of forest-fire dangers. and inexperienced with forest fires were Attempt to put it out 87.9 those with unfavorable attitudes and Report the fire 10.2 Hope somebody comes actions of responsibility." by whose responsibility it is to put out fires 1.6 Sources of Forest Fire Knowledge Other .3 100.0 Percent It is most difficult in a study of this kind to determine where people actually obtain their knowledge about When asked what they thought theyforest-fire prevention and dangers. actually would do when faced withMost likely this information is trans- the situation described above. 85 per-mitted to each individual through a cent of the respondents said that theynormal process of socialization by would attempt to put out the fire, 10parents,otherrelatives,friends. percent indicated they would reportteachers. church leaders. scout club the fire, 1 percent said they wouldleaders, and many other persons in not worry about it, and the remain-addition. to a person's own efforts ing 4 percent gave indecisive answersthrough reading, watching television, such as "don't know." listening to the radio, and through It is quite obvious from this dataother means. An attempt was made. that the great majority of people in-however, to measure the effect of terviewed feel a responsibilityto-mass communications in providing ward the national forests. One mustcertain information.? discount, somewhat, socially accept- able answers to questions of this type. News Programs as Sources of For- However, the strength of this attitudeestFire Knowledge:Respondents is such that it would most likelywere asked if they remembered read- motivate many of these people to noting about, or hearing of any forest only prevent forest fires but actuallyfires that occurred in Utah during take an active part in fighting themthe previous year from newspapers. should the occasion arise. radio. or TV news programs. Slight- On the basis of these and otherly over half (58 percent) of the re- questions asked in the interviews,spondents indicated that they had however, it appears that about 5 per-heard or read about forest fires in cent of the respondents have attitudesUtah from newspapers, radio, or TV. which offer little protection to theForty-two percent of the respondents forests. Moreover. some respondentsindicated they could not remember had attitudes which suggested thatgetting news of forest fires from the hostile acts toward national forestsradio. TV. or -newspapers. might be expected as a result. `William S. Folkman, Robert J. McLaren, An analysis of these data revealed and John R. Christiansen, "Public Responsi- that responsible attitudes and actionsbility for Natural Resources," U.S. Forest werefoundtobecharacteristicService Research Note PSW-165, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment, of older, urban-dwelling, fire-experi- Berkeley, California, 1968. enced, authority-tolerant, and Fre- 'See Appendix Table 3 for supplemental knowledgeable persons. On thecon- information.

12 To determine what kind of mes-about the content of radio commer- This sageswere rememberedbest,re-cials dealing with forest fires. spondents were asked what newsresponse was muchahead of the next about fires they remembered mostmost frequently mentioned messages clearly. The responses to this ques-which concerned information about tion were categorized and are pre-putting out campfires (14 percent) of sented below: and information about disposing cigarettes(10 percent). Other re- Percentage membered messages included putting Response out matches (6percent), and the (N`901) destruction caused by fires (3 per- Location 27.1 cent). Life and property losses2.7 Television "Commercials" as Fire-fighting techniques2.4 2.7 Sources of Forest-Fire Knowledge: Conservation losses Most (86 percent) of the respondents Type of fire 2.1 recalled seeing television commer- Fire prevention .3 cials dealing with preventing forest Other 5.8 fires during the year precedingthe Nothing remembered 56.9 interviews. When asked what, if any- Total 100.0 thing, they remembered aboutthe commercials, 70 percent of the respondents first mentioned "Smokey Less than half of the respondents re-Bear." This response was followedin membered reading or hearing anyfrequency by "informationabout "news" of forest fires in Utah.Ofputting out campfires" (10 percent), those who said they did rememberand "information about disposingof such news, the majority (57 percent)cigarettes" (8 percent). responded that television hadkept them most informed of forestfires. Newspaper Articles as Sources of Twenty-five percent of the personsForest-Fire Knowledge: Slightly more remembering forest-fire newsindi-than half (51 percent) recalledread- cated that newspapers kept thembesting newspaper articles on forestfires informed, whereas18percent ofduring the previous year.Smokey these respondents said the radio wasBear was first mentioned by 39 percent of the respondents asbeing re- their best source. membered in the article. This re- Radio "Commercials" as Sourcesofsponse wasfollowed by putting out Forest-Fire Knowledge: Whenaskedcampfires (15 percent), destruction whether they recalled hearing anycaused by fires (11 percent),dispos- "commercials" on the radio relativeing of cigarettes (10 percent), put- to forest-fire prevention,64 percentting out matches (6 percent),and of the respondents answered"yes."miscellaneous answers (19 percent). and 36percent responded"no." Further questioning revealedthat Sources of Knowledge About "Ex- Smokey Bear wasfirstremem-treme" Fire-Danger Conditions:The bered in the commercials morethanrespondents were asked if they knew any other item.Over half (57 per-when forest-fire danger in Utah was cent) of the respondentsremember-"extreme," and if so, how theybe- ing hearing radio commercialssaidcame aware of it. "Smokey Bear"first when asked In response to this question, 90

13 percent of the respondents said theyhow they were made aware of "ex- were aware when the danger of firestreme" fire conditions in the forests. in the national forests of Utah wasthe responses of those indicating they "extreme." and 10 percent said theywere aware of "extreme" conditions were riot. Relative to the question ofwere distributed as follows:

Rank of News Source News Source Percentage (N=815) I Television 33.3 2 Own observations 21.8 3 Radio 18.5 4 Newspapers 12.8 5 Signs or posters 10.3 6 Other sources 3.3 Total 100.0

Recommendations for More 2.Althoughnotdirectlyre- vealed through the data pre- Effective Forest-Fire Prevention sented. Utah County resi- Programs dents tend to believe that the national forests are their for- It is difficult, if not impossible. to estsnot the government's portray all possible ways in which and, because they own them, the information given in this study they should have a say in can be used to better existing forest- their management, be wel- fire prevention programs. This is be- come in the national forests, cause no writer or group of writers and be treated politely and can represent the experience. jobs, courteously by government problems, and abilities represented in employees. the potential readers of this publica- tion. It is the reader who must make 3.Future planning for national- the bulk of the recommendations that forest use should be done ought to come from a study like this. with the continuing under- Some suggestive conclusions will be stancEng that many times as given, however. which may assist the many people that use the for- reader in formulating his own appli- ests now will be using them in the next few years for rec- cations of the data: reational purposes. 1.Most of the people of Utah 4.Fire is, and will increasingly County visit the national for- be, used in the national forests during the year. Thus. ests by visitors. Research and educational programs ought programs designed to "fire- to be geared to all the people. proof" greater areas of the but have an emphasis on that national forests should be de- segment of the people who veloped. are most active in the forest 5.Couplingtheinformation and most ill-informed about that Utah County residents fire dangers. know the "watershed"con-

14 cept well and were able to re- tion and control of forest call location of fires from fires. These workshops could news media, suggeststhat be madevery enjoyable for fire- prevention propaganda the boys and officials. be oriented toward notions of 7. "Smokey Bear"as a sym- saving one's own property, bol of fire prevention should water supply,recreational certainly be retained, at least sites, etc., through preserving untilevidence contraryto the watersheds. Moreover, by that revealed in thissurvey appealingtothefeeling suggests otherwise. among these residents that 8. More research is neededto thenationalforestsare evaluate the effectiveness of theirs, greater aid in discour- mass media as informational aging or apprehending fire- tools.This studysuggests regulation violators might be thattheirinfluence may obtained. be negligible. It is possible 6. Lacking mandatory firepre- that mass media approaches vention instruction in Utah should be supplemented by such as is taught in the Cali- person - to - person contacts fornia publicschools, and with national forest visitors recognizing that most boys in by well-trained,courteous, Utah are registered with the and tactful forestry officers. Boy Scouts of America,ex- Such contactsmay have a tensive fire preventionpro- more lasting effect in inform- grams should be carried out ing and promoting desirable through the Boy Scouts. Con- attitudes and behavior. servation programs might be 9. More research is neededto cosponsored by the national identify the national forest forests and the Boy Scouts of users who are hostile and ir- America more than theyare responsible in their behavior, now toreseed burot-over and to planprograms which areas,build antierosion might reduce this hostility dams, etc. During thesepro- and irresponsibility, and/or g r a m sforestryofficials the extent of their activities should take an active part in the national forests. Thus, and in doing so explain the for example, aprogram to causes,results,andpre- measure the reduced effect, ventive aspects of forest fires. if any, of havingrangers ap- The possibility of having pear less military in their amerit badge inforest- dress might be called for. Or, fire prevention and fighting changing the image of the should be considered. A part ranger from that associated of the requirements for such with the policeor game war- a badge might be a work- dens might involve hisnot shop wherein boys could be being responsible for investi- given instructions in conduct- gating fires. ing fire-prevention activities, Changing the attitude of For- building firelines,use of fire- est Service personnel as well fighting tools and techniques, as others regarding the for- as well as theory in preven- ests might be useful too. For

15 example. the attitude of pos- inform the public that these sessiveness on the part of are their lands. and that the someForestServiceem- Forest Service needstheir ployee:: summed up by the help in protecting and con- statement. "This is my dis- serving them so that all may trict," can not help bitt re- share and enjoy them may duce the feeling of responsi- be the kind of public-rela- bility, that the public has for tions stance that will be help- those lands., On the other ful today and vital in the hand, an increased effort to future.

1,A1

t're 4'14

c:4 44.

Coal Mine Hollow ridge.

Table 1.Number of visits to wildiand areas made by residents of Utah and Butte Counties in 1965 and 1964, respectively Percentage Distribution Butte County Utah County Number of wildland visits (N=761) (N = 901 ) None 24 12 1 -2 11 12 35 17 16 6- 10 16 20 11 or more 32 38 Don't know or no answer 0 2

100 100

16 Table 2.--Participationin outdoor activities of residents of Utah and Butte Counties compared with national and regional participation'

Percent Participation United Butte Utah Activity States West County County" Camping 8 17 36 25 Picnicking 53 54 53 55 Hunting 213 214 24 37 Fishing 29 30 36 42 Hiking 6 9 38 22 Ranching or other work connected with occupation 17 5 Other activity 18 5 Sightseeing 55 (Driving for pleasure) 52 56 82 65

'Data for the United States and Western Region are from Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, National Recreation Survey, ORRRC Study Report 19, 394 pp., 1962. In a number of ways the data are not comparable. The national survey included respondents 12 years of age and over; the survey of Utah and Butte Counties included those 14 years of age and over. The national survey data reported are for the period from June through August (except for hunting which is for September through December); the data of Utah and Butte Counties are for the entire year. 'Period reported is September through December. 'Questions pertaining to outdoor recreational activities in Utah County were restricted to participation in national forest areas only.

Table 3.Ranking of outdoor activities in national forests according to percentage of Utah County residents who participate in them, and use of fire in connection with them

Percentage of Percentage of Utah County time fire was Rank residents who Rank used in according participated according toconnection to use of Activity during yearparticipationwith activity fire

Sightseeing 65 1 5 8 (Driving for pleasure) Picnicking 55 2 59 2 Fishing 42 3 36 4 Hunting 37 4 53 3 Camping 25 5 76 1 Hiking 22 6 31 5 Ranching or other work connected with occupation 5 7 23 6 Other activity 5 8 22 7

17 Table 4.-Relationship ofwildland activities to certainsocio-economic characteristics, Utah County, 1966

Other Item Hiking Hunting Picnicking Driving Number . Working Camping Fishing 45 331 500 587 47 230 382 199 Reporting Part. .001 .001 .05 .001 .001 .001 .001 Age .05 .001 .20 .001 .001 .001 .02 .001 .001 .70 Marital status .01 .001 .01 .01 .01 .30 .30 Education .001 .001 .01 .02 .001 .05 .001 Job status .50 .90 .05 .30 .05 .001 .001 Type of work .001 .005 .005 .1 ).... .005 .005 .005 .005 oo Family income .005 .50 .001 .50 .001 .02 Sex .001 .10 .50 .50 Time Lived in .30 .50 .50 .50 Present residence .10 .02 .001 .001 .02 .01 .30 .90 .10 .70 Previous residence .70 .98 .05 .05 Migratory status .50 .20 .20 .01 Table 5.Fire-prevention knowledge score related totypes of wildland activity Number ReportingMean Score Activity (Percent Correct) Activity Total 901 80.95 Frequency of wildland use: None 112 79 1- 4 203 79 5-9 174 81 10 -19 181 81 20-49 153 82 50-99 44 82 100 -199 8 81 200+ 6 90 DNA 20 Work in vvildlands: No 854 81 Yes 42 83.4 DNA 5 Hunting 331 96 Camping 230 81 Fishing 382 96 Hiking 199 82 Picnicking 500 81 Sightseeing (driving) 587 79 Other 45 82

_ -- Appendix Table 1.-Wi Idland activity related to certain socio-esonomiccharacteristics, Utah County, 1966

Number of TotalnumberofvisitstoNationalForest Characteristic respondentsNone 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-4950-99 100-199200+N.A. Total Percent Age: 14-19 91 2.2 17.8 14.4 36.7 20.0 6.7 1.1 0.0 1.1 100.0 20-24 92 3.3 19.6 17.4 20.7 30.3 7.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 25-29 83 2.4 16.9 15.7 27.7 26.5 3.6 2.4 1.2 3.6 100.0 30-39 152 3.3 17.1 19.7 27.6 21.1 6.6 1.3 0.7 2.6 100.0 40-49 131 6.1 24.4 22.9 19.8 16.8 4.6 0.8 3.1 1.5 100.0 50-59 127 15.0 28.3 23.6 16.5 11.0 2.4 0.8 0.0 2.4 100.0 60-69 116 25.9 24.1 24.1 7.8 11.2 5.2 0.0 0.0 1.7 100.0 70 and over 106 40.6 30.2 10.4 7.5 3.8 2.8 0.0 0.0 4.7 100.0 N.A. 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 t.o 0 Total 901 12.4 22.6 19.2 20.1 17.0 4.9 0.9 0.7 2.2 100.0 Sex: Male 409 9.6 20.9 18.6 18.6 20.8 6.6 0.7 1.5 2.7 100.0 Female 492 14.9 24.0 19.6 21.4 13.8 3.5 1.0 0.0 1.8 100.0 Total 901 12.4 22.6 19.2 20.1 17.0 4.9 0.9 0.7 2.2 100.0 Marital Status: Single 122 5.8 24.8 15.7 28.1 17.4 6.6 0.8 0.0 0.8 100.0 Married 672 8.8 21.5 21.0 20.7 18.5 5.4 1.0 0.7 2.4 100.0 Widowed, divorced 107 43.0 26.2 12.1 7.5 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 2.8 100.0 or separated Total 901 12.4 22.6 19.2 20.1 17.0 4.9 0.9 0.7 2.2 100.0 Years of school completed: 0-4 6 66.6 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 100.0 5-7 32 40.6 21.9 3.1 9.4 18.8 3.1 0.0 0.0 3.1 100.0 100.0 81 27.2 30.8 21.0 4.9 6.2 7.4 0.0 0.0 2.5 8 0.0 2.3 100.0 9-11 263 11.8 25.9 19.5 21.0 13.7 5.0 0.8 12 (high school 100.0 graduate) 315 6.0 20.0 20.0 25.2 20.6 3.8 1.9 0.6 1.9 13-15 (some 1.3 100.0 college) 151 12.6 16.6 21.8 19.9 19.9 5.3 0.0 2.6 5.7 28.5 14.3 25.7 22.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 100.0 16 (college graduate) 35 5.6 100.0 17+ (post graduate)18 11.1 22.1 16.7 5.6 16.7 22.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 Total 901 12.4 22.6 19.2 20.1 17.0 4.9 0.9 0.7 2.2 Occupational status: 7.7 20.2 18.7 19.9 22.5 5.9 1.2 1.8 2.1 100.0 Full time 337 100.0 167 9.6 22.3 16.9 25.9 18.1 5.4 0.6 0.0 1.2 Part time 100.0 85 32.8 31.8 16.5 4.7 5.9 2.4 1.2 0.0 4.7 Retired or disabled 2.7 100.0 Housewife 262 13.4 22.4 20.6 21.4 14.5 4.2 0.8 0.0 34 2.9 23.5 35.4 23.5 8.8 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Student 100.0 Other 16 39.9 26.7 6.7 20.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.2 100.0 ..&\2 Total 901 12.4 22.6 19.2 20.1 17.0 4.9 0.9 Occupation: Professional, 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 technical 40 5.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 22.5 12.5 Farmer, farm 4.2 2.1 2.1 100.0 manager 48 12.5 18.8 22.9 4.2 31.1 2.1 Manager, official, 2.2 190.0 proprietor 46 10.9 32.5 26.1 15.2 10.9 0.0 0.0 2.'z 12.9 19.4 12.9 25.7 22.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 100.0 Clerical 31 100.0 425 17.2 24.7 20.5 18.6 12.7 3.3 0.9 0.0 2.6 Sales 2.8 1.4 100.0 Craftsman 72 2.8 18.1 18.1 23.6 24.9 8.3 0.0 7.9 13.2 15.8 26.3 22.4 6.6 2.6 1.3 3.9 100.0 Operative 76 100.0 102 10.9 25.7 14.9 18.8 19.8 7.9 0.0 1.0 1.0 Service 100.0 60 5.0 21.7 18.3 31.6 16.7 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Laborer 0.0100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 D.N.A. 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 100,0 Total 901 12.5 22.6 19.2 20.1 17.0 4.9 0.9 0.7 Family income: 32.2 10.0 6.7 4.4 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.3 100.0 Under $1500 90 41.2 100.0 21.3 35.2 i9.4 11.1 7.4 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.7 $1500 - 2999 108 2.8 100.0 109 11.9 24.9 17.4 17.4 18.3 6.4 0.9 0.0 3000 .- 4499 22.9 2.8 1.4 0.9 2.3 100.0 4500 - 5999 219 5.0 20.2 21.6 22.9 16.3 19.3 30.3 16.3 5.9 1.0 1.0 2.0 100.0 6000 - 7999 202 7.9 100.0 6.7 17.3 19.2 23.1 24.0 6.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 8000 - 9999 104 0.0 100.0 53 5.7 18.9 20.8 17.0 22.5 13.2 1.9 0.0 10,000 - 14,999 8.3 0.0 100.0 12 8.3 25.0 41.8 0.0 8.3 8.3 0.0 15,000+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other 4 25.0 25.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 4.9 0.9 0.7 2.2 100.0 "1'otal 901 12.9 22.6 :9.2 20.1 Residence: Open country, 0.0 0.0 2.6 100.0 farm 116 11.3 22.6 22.6 27.0 12.2 1.7 Open country, 0.0 1.7 100.0 59 6.8 22.0 20.3 23.8 16.9 3.4 5.1 ND nonfarm NSmall town 1.6 0.0 100.0 124 8.1 1.3.3 19.4 21.0 18.5 7.3 0.8 village 0.7 0.7 2.7 100.0 City 602 14.1 22.4 18.4 18.3 17.6 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000.0 Not reported ____ 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.7 2.2 100.0 Total 901 12.4 22.6 19.2 20.1 17.0 4.9 Appendix Table 2.-Items comprising the knowledge inventory, showing percentage distributions of responses to individual questions for Utah and Butte County residents Utah County Butte County responses responses (N=901) (N=761) Percent

1. Green trees and shrubs of Utah (California) Are very difficult to burn 21.1 19.6 Will not burn at all E3 1.6 Will catch fire and burn very rapidly 52.1' 43.4* Will burn only in the hot summer months 24.3 27.7 Do not know .2 7.7 2. The safest method for lighting cigarettes in the forest is to use Book-type safety matches 15.1 19.3 Strike anywhere, stick-type matches .6 1.2 Stick-type safety matches 5.0 8.3 A hand cigarette lighter 78.8* 65.4* Do not know .5 5.8 3. The surest way to put out a campfire, assuming all these methods are available, is to Pour water on it 7.4 7.1 Completely cover with dirt 6.1 34.3 Pour water on it and stir thoroughly 85.5* 56.6* Spread out the embers and let it burn itself out .6 1.2 Do not know 4. If you are negligent with your campfire or warming fire and it escapes to the property of another, whether privately or publicly owned. you are Not liable for cost of damages done 3.9 Liable for damages and to fine for negligence 73.0' Liable for damages but not for fine 9.8 Liable for fine but not for damages 12.2 Do not know 1.1 5. If you drive your car off the road in dry grass areas Exhause sparks can start a fire 11.7 18.3 Sparks made by contact of metal parts of the car with rocks can set fires 6.0 3.7 Both of the above statements are true 65.8' 61.8* Neither of the above statements are true 15.9 5.0 Do not know .6 11.2 6. A sign in a National Forest that reads "Closed Area" means You may enter, but not smoke in the area .6 3.3 You may enter, but not build any campfires or smoke in the area 5.4 6.4 You may not hunt or shoot within the area 4.4 5.6 You may not enter the area at all 89.4* 74.3 Do not know .2 10.4 7. Windy weather Tends to put out fires .4 .3 Makes necessary more precautions with fires 97.9 97.1* Affects only poorly built fires .6 .6 Has little or no influence on fires .8 .4 Do not know- 8. "Humidity" is a measure of Temperature of the air 7.9 7.5

23 Amount of rainfall that has fallen in last 24 hours 2.0 2.9 Percent of cloudiness during the daylight hours 1.2 .9 Amount of moisture in the air 88.1* 81.2 Do not know .8 7.5 9. "Watersheds" are Areas where rain falls or snow melts to supply water to springs and creeks 70.6 47.1* Structures over railroads for protection against heavy snow and rain .9 6.7 Buildings with gutters that run water to a cistern 2.1 3.4 Lakes and reservoirs which collect the water runoff from forests 26.2 20.4 Do not know .2 22.4 10. A fire is more apt to start where there is Low temperature and low humidity 2.4 1.6 High temperature and low humidity 71.2 62.6* High temperature and high humidity 23.4 21.9 Low temperature and high humidity 2.0 3.0 Do not know 1.0 10 9 11. The chief cause of forest fires in Utah (California) is Lightning 13.3 17.5* Campfires 27.7 5.9 Children playing with matches 3.4 3.0 Smokers' cigarettes and matches 55.4 58.8 Do not know .2 14.8 12. 'What percentage of the forest fires in Utah (California) are man-caused? 25 percent 7.3 46 percent 19.3 65 percent 32.4* 85 percent 40.3 Do not know .7 Indicates correct response - Indicates data are not sufficiently comparable foranalysis to be made

Appendix Table 3.-Percentage distributions of Utah County residents according to mass media contacts, 1966 Percent Radio station listened to most frequently KSL, Salt Lake City 24.8 KCPX, Salt Lake City 11.0 KLUB, Salt Lake City 5.6 KSOP, Salt Lake City 4-1 KOVO, Provo 21.4 KEYY, Provo 1.3 KIXX, Provo .7 KONI, Spanish Fork 9.6 Some other station 1.3 Do not listen or no answer 20.2 Total 100.0 24 Amount of time spent listening to radio Less than 1 hour 21.0 1 or 2 hours 27.8 3 or 4 hours 15.2 5 or more hours 15.4 Do not listen or no answer 20.6

Total 100.0

Time of day radio is listened to most often Midnight to 5:59 a.m. .6 6:00 a.m. to 7:59 a.m. 23.8 8:00 a.m. to 11:59 a.m. 24.2 Noon until 4:59 p.m. 9.0 5:00 to 7:59 p.m. 10.1 8:00 to 11:59 p.m. 11.3 Do not listen or no answer 21.0

Total 100.0

Television station watched most frequently fornews KSL 48.4 KCPX 26.9 KUTV 17.3 KUED (University of Utah educational TV) 0.0 KBYU (Brigham Young University educational TV) 0.1 Do not watch or no answer 7.3

Total 100.0

Television station watched most frequently forprograms other than news KSL 31.9 KCPX 35.4 KUTV 23.8 KUED (University of Utah educational TV) 1.7 KBYU (Brigham Young University educational TV) .4 Do not watch or no answer 6.8

Total 100.0

Amount of hours spent watching television daily Less than 1 hour 9.1 1 or 2 hours 29.0 3 or 4 hours 35.2 5 or more hours 21.6 Do not watch TV or no answer 5.1

Total 100.0

25 Time of day television is watched most often Midnight to 5:59 a.m. 0.0 6:00 a.m. to 7:59 a.m. LI 8:00 a.m. to 11:59 a.m. 10.0 Noon until 4:59 p.m. 5.2 5:00 to 7:59 p.m. 17.4 8:00 to 11:59 p.m. 61.0 Do not watch TV or no answer 5.3 Total 100.0

Newspapers read Salt Lake Tribune 10.2 Deseret News and Telegram 15.2 Salt Lake TribuneSunday only 1.7 Provo Daily Herald 25.7 Local weekly 3.2 Tribune plus local weekly 7.9 Deseret News plus local weekly 14.0 Provo Daily Herald plus local weekly 12.3 Do not read newspaper or no answer 9.8 Total 100.0 Magazines most often read News (Time, U. S. News, Newsweek, etc.) 17.0 Pictoral news (Life, Look, Post, etc.) 1.8 Sports (Outdoor Life, Field and Stream, etc.) 11.4 Home (Mc Calls, Good Housekeeping, etc.) 3.9 Children's (American Girl, Boy's Life, etc.) 12.7 Church (Improvement Era, etc.) .7 Occupational (Woolgrower's, etc.) 27.4 Other 5.4 Do not read magazines or no answer 19.7 Total 100.0