Longitudinal Analysis Of Public Response To Wildland Fire And Fuel Management

Abstract: Wildland fire is one of the foremost land management issues impacting both public and private resources throughout the United States. Since 2000, the average annual acres burned nearly doubled from the previous decade (National Interagency Fire Center 2010). The human population within the wildland-urban interface (WUI) has increased greatly while a century of national fire suppression policy has allowed adjacent fuel levels to reach unprecedented levels. In the midst of this volatile and high stakes situation, public land managers are tasked with implementing fuel reduction programs designed to reduce the excessive forest vegetation that can lead to catastrophic wildfires and threaten communities. Public acceptance is an essential element to successful implementation of fuel management activities. This longitudinal study examined public opinion of agency fuel reduction strategies in seven states (AZ, CO, OR, UT, MI, MN, WI) over a six-year period (2002-2008). Responses provide information on citizen support and contributing factors and allow examination of differences between locations and over time. The study also examined the decision-making environment of fire managers in the three lake states where fuel management programs were in early stages of development. These findings provide descriptive information about the types of treatments used, management objectives, and the factors that influence fuel management decisions in these locations.

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.

This is a print on demand edition of a hard to find publication. A mail survey to local residents was used to describe the public¿s understanding of this form of management, identify perceived associated risks and potential barriers to implementation, and the overall level of support for disturbance-based practices. The public generally supports the disturbance-based concept, particularly ecological benefits, but many are still uncertain about details and are withholding judgment until they see the outcomes of implementation. Support is highly correlated with citizens¿ past interaction with local managers. Concerns involve the amount of timber harvesting necessary to achieve objectives and the possibility that changing national politics may influence the consistency of agency policies toward disturbance-based mgmt.

This report examines public perspectives on disturbance-based management conducted in the central Cascade Range in Oregon as part of the Blue River Landscape Strategy. A mail survey to local residents was used to describe the publics understanding of this form of management, identify perceived associated risks and potential barriers to implementation, and the overall level of support for disturbance-based practices. Findings suggest the public generally supports the disturbance-based concept, particularly ecological benefits, but many individuals are still uncertain about details and are withholding judgment until they see the outcomes of implementation. Support is highly correlated with citizens past interaction with local managers. Major concerns involve the amount of timber harvesting necessary to achieve objectives and the possibility that changing national politics may influence the consistency of agency policies toward disturbance-based management.

The objective of this study was to provide managers with national-level data on current conditions of vegetation and fuels developed from ecologically based methods to address these questions: How do current vegetation and fuels differ from those that existed historically? Where on the landscape do vegetation and fuels differ from historical levels? In particular, where are high fuel accumulations? When considered at a coarse scale, which areas estimated to have high fuel accumulations represent the highest priorities for treatment?