COMMON FACTORS AFFECTING THE SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF FUEL MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

1
COMMON FACTORS AFFECTING THE SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF
FUEL MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
2
Presentation Outline

• Overview and objectives of the study
• Key findings
• Application of the findings

3
Objectives

• Design and test a survey instrument that measures
  homeowner acceptance of fuel treatment
  approaches at wildland-urban interface
• Prescribed burning
• mechanical treatment
• defensible space ordinance
• Explore fuel treatment acceptance factors
• Construct models of fuel treatment acceptance

4
Study Sites

• Tuolumne, Placer,
• El Dorado, CA
• Oak woodland, pine, mixed conifer
• Federal forest
• Frequent wildfire, rare Rx fire

• Marin, CA
• Grass, chaparral, oak,
• Conifer
• High valued homes
• Federal, state lands
• Rare wildfire, no Rx fire, intense suppression

Yellow Focus Group Red Survey
Blue Both

• Oscoda, Crawford, Ogemaw, MI
• Jack pine
• Many seasonal homes
• Federal, state forest
• Moderately frequent Rx fireand wildfire

• Clay, FL
• Pine
• Some seasonal homes
• Private forest ownership
• Frequent wild and Rx fire

5
Hypothesized predictors of approval

• Theory of Reasoned Action
• Beliefs predicting attitude
• Attitude predicting approval
• Other factors..
• Personal experience with fire and fuel treatment
• Trust in agency
• Personal importance of fuel treatments
• Demographic factors

6
Respondent Fuel Treatment Experiences
7
Theoretical Framework for Studying Human
Acceptance of Fuel Reduction

• Selected part of the Theory of Reasoned Action to
  guide and structure our inquiry

Belief Evaluation Outcome Good/bad
Intent to support Acceptance of fuel
treatment Vote for
Attitude toward fuel treatments Positive/negative
Belief Strength Likelihood a fuel treatment will
produce an outcome Very likely/unlikely
8
Other Fuel Treatments Consistently predictive
factors

• Mechanical treatment
• Cost effectiveness
• Impacts scenery (negative)
• Personal importance
• Trust
• Defensible space
• Cost effectiveness
• Impacts scenery (negative)
• Personal importance
• Trust

9
Trust Findings
Mean of scale where 1 is strongly disagree 7
strongly agree
10
Conceptual model, prescribed burning
Personal importance of prescribed burning
B .34, .41, .27
Impacts scenery
B .08, .02, .02
More smoke now, less later
B .07, .01, .02
Prescribed Burning attitude
B .67, .70, .63
Reduces cost of fire fighting
B .17, .20, .25
Prescribed burning approval
R2 .51, .37, .47
Restores wildlands
B .05, .09, .09
R2 .64, .53, .65
Improves wildlife conditions
B .14, .00, .13
Note Beta coefficient (B) in the order CA, FL,
MI Boldface type statistically significant p.05
Allows uncontrolled fires
B -.21,-.17,-.26
11
Demographics dont predict acceptance

• Education
• Gender
• Household size
• Employment status
• Tenure
• Income
• Residential status
• Respiratory ailment status

12
Implications

• Find the balance of residential acceptance and
  environmental health
• Combine social science research, including public
  engagement, and the biological sciences,
  including forestry
• Understand the fuel reduction tools to reduce
  risks
• Find role for agency outreach programs
• Continue to make public aware and educated on the
  impacts of their actions