Acceptability Norms toward Fire Management in Three National Forests

Abstract

Norm theory offers a paradigm for understanding why the public judges management actions acceptable or unacceptable. This study assesses normative beliefs about acceptable wildland fire management. The acceptability of three fire management actions for eight scenarios was examined. The scenarios varied by fire origin and fire impact on air quality, private property, forest recovery, and outdoor recreation. The data were obtained from a mail survey of visitors to three national forests: (a) Arapaho-Roosevelt, Colorado ( n = 469), (b) Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, Washington ( n = 498), and (b) San Bernardino, California ( n = 321). Results of a mixed design ANOVA indicated that the acceptability of wildland fire management actions varied according to the fire scenario evaluated, but substantive differences in normative beliefs were not noted among the three forests. Chi-square analyses identified differences in normative agreement for fire management actions across scenarios but did not reveal substantive differences in normative agreement between forests.

Intergenerational Perceptions of Coercive and Legitimate Power

“…Ramli et al (2018) suggested that perception may be influenced by two essential steps of elements for response and elements of sensory experience. These beliefs and perceptions are influenced by prior experience, judgments, knowledge and the education and information efforts by policymakers (Kneeshaw, Vaske, Bright, & Absher, 2004). From several previous studies, we concluded the past period when someone grew and developed, involvement in technology, and responding to policymakers are the factors that influence the perception of taxpayers in the present.…”

Research perspectives on the public and fire management: a synthesis of current social science on eight essential questions

“…Notably, the most consistent finding across these studies is that they detected much less variation than expected Shindler et al 2009;Toman et al , 2011Vining and Merrick 2008). Where geographic variation has been found, it either has generally been too small to be meaningful or was seen to reflect specific local contextual factors, such as ecological conditions, regulations, building styles, agencycommunity interaction, or specific historical events (Bowker et al 2008, Brunson and Shindler 2004, Kneeshaw et al 2004a, Mendez et al 2003, Ryan 2010, Shindler et al 2009). For example, one study found variation in responses across four states, but an examination of findings across papers (e.g., Winter et al 2002Winter et al , 2006 indicates that the variation is likely a reflection of local practices and experience: in California, where defensible space ordinances are very active, respondents were supportive of defensible space; Florida, where prescribed fire was most common, had the highest level of acceptance for prescribed fire; and Michigan respondents, who had experienced a damaging escaped prescribed fire, were most knowledgeable about fire damage and evacuation.…”

Wildland Fire and Organic Discourse: Negotiating Place and Leisure Identity in a Changing Wildland Urban Interface

“…(Cortner & Gale, 1990, p. 254) Some researchers have examined this people problem by studying the potential threat of wildland fire to outdoor leisure activities through an economic lens (Englin, Loomis & Gonzalez-Caban, 2001;Starbuck, Berrens & McKee, 2006). Others have done so from the perspective of attitude change theory (Kneeshaw et al, 2004a;Kneeshaw et al, 2004b). We argue that the research can go further.…”

“…Many of these studies have concentrated on the economic impact of wildland fire burning popular recreation areas (Englin, Loomis, & Gonzalez-Caban, 2001;Starbuck, Berrens, & McKee, 2006). Other attitudinal studies have investigated how social norms influence the way recreationists perceive fuels treatment (Kneeshaw et al, 2004a;Kneeshaw et al, 2004b). However, little research has examined how people perceive wildland fire, particularly regarding their experiences with highly valued places in which they recreate and engage in practices of identity.…”