Public Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Wildland Fire

One of the fundamental principles of this Communicator's Guide is to learn about your audience before you communicate your message. The role of learning about your audience's perceptions and attitudes becomes more difficult as your audience grows in size. For wildland fire communicators in the United States, determining the perceptions and attitudes of a group of millions of people with widely diverse cultures, backgrounds, and experiences is a very challenging task. In many portions of the country, public perceptions and attitudes of wildland fire differ. However, no matter where your location, the themes presented in this section should provide a solid foundation for future investigation. To build on that foundation you must investigate the specific characteristics of the public in your geographic area. With this knowledge you will better understand your audience and the challenges that lie ahead as a fire communicator. This section of the Communicator's Guide provides a useful starting point and an overall view of the public perceptions and attitudes of wildland fire in the United States.

You may be asking yourself, "why are the perceptions and attitudes of the public a concern in my particular line of work?" Perceptions and attitudes are crucial because the public is the major supplier, consumer, and stakeholder in the issues you deal with each day. In most cases, the public provides the main source of funding for the majority of research, management, education, and employment opportunities in the wildland fire field. Much of the money used to drive the wildland fire field is generated through public tax dollars. The importance of the public does not stop with the idea that they are the ones funding the system; they are also the ones utilizing the system. These taxpayers are also the same individuals who request information regarding your organization's fire management policies and practices. In addition, the public are major stakeholders in the wildland fire field. These stakeholders own property and structures that could be consumed by fire. They also reside in wildfire prone areas, and trust wildland fire managers to implement management policies and techniques to protect their family and friends. It is therefore important that each time you see the word "public" you realize just how much of a stake the public has in the management of wildland fire. Finally, it is important to remember that the attitudes and perceptions held by the public provide future direction for wildland fire policy. If wildland fire programs do not receive public support, government officials may be willing to alter present wildland fire policies. It is for all of these reasons that we consider the public to be providers, consumers, and ultimate stakeholders, and it is our responsibility to communicate the wildland fire message to them.

In general, the public has been slow to accept fire as a legitimate wildland fire management tool for many reasons. One of the most significant reasons is because of the past message of fire suppression from those responsible for ecosystem management. This suppression message began back in the early 1900s when the United States Forest Service initiated the policy of extinguishing all forest fires. This policy was strengthened in 1935 when the U.S. Forest Service tried a continent–wide experiment called the "10 a.m. policy" (Pyne et al., 1996). This policy required managers to extinguish all wildland fires by 10 a.m. on the day following their ignition. This heavy–handed approach to suppress fire was packaged to the public along with education. Through long–term government educational campaigns the idea of immediate suppression endured. The icon for this suppression policy was first developed by the Wartime Advertising Council in 1944, and later updated by the U.S. Forest Service (Fuller, 1991). Smokey Bear and his message of "only you can prevent forest fires" impacted individuals of all ages. With Smokey's help, agencies responsible for fire management had soon gained almost unanimous support for the immediate suppression of all fires.

During the 1960s and 1970s the development of the environmental movement gave rise to the idea that total wildland fire suppression may be harmful to the ecosystem. During this same time, research found that people preferred naturalness in wildlands, including naturally occurring woody debris. Yet, the same research found that the public disliked the same woody debris if it had been caused by commercial logging activity (Shelby and Speaker, 1990). In order to remedy these two situations, researchers in the late 1970s stressed using "prescribed fire" as a method of protecting, maintaining, and enhancing forest resources while reducing unsightly logging debris. From the success of these early trials, forest managers and researchers soon learned the benefits of re–introduced fire upon ecosystems where it had been suppressed.

Since those early fire re–introductions through the use of prescribed fire, the public's knowledge about prescribed fires has increased greatly. However, the management options of the past have still caused confusion for the public at times. One of the reasons for this confusion is a result of Smokey Bear. A 1989 survey found that 71% of children aged 5–13 could recognize Smokey Bear and his message based upon fire suppression (Fuller, 1991). However, during this same period many fire managers were not talking about suppression, but rather terms like "natural fire policy" or "let burn" management. The idea of two seemingly contradictory management techniques provided mixed messages for the public and thus created confusion. A good example of this confusion is illustrated by the public's perceptions and attitudes during the 1970s. During this time, the public had mixed attitudes regarding the ways of managing wildland fire and ecosystems. One of the main factors that helped to resolve the public's confusion about wildland fire was education. The results of this education are well illustrated by the changing public attitudes and perceptions over the last 30 years.

In 1971, a study tested visitors on their knowledge of fire's effects upon the ecosystem in Montana's Selway–Bitterroot Wilderness (Stankey, 1976). Results of the true/false test indicated that the average visitor could only identify about half of the statements that related to fire's effects upon the ecosystem. The most interesting theme to arise out of this study was that greater fire knowledge relates to increased support for decreased fire suppression activities.

In 1976, another survey found that over half of respondents agreed that occasional fires were an important part of ecosystem renewal (Folkman, 1979). Yet, of those same Los Angeles and San Francisco residents, about 75% agreed that naturally ignited fires should not be allowed to burn even if they did not endanger human life or property. Slightly more than three–quarters of surveyed residents in Los Angeles and San Francisco also agreed that it is important for government agencies to suppress fire as soon as possible after ignition, no matter where the fire is located. In other words, even though people knew the importance of occasional fires, they still felt that immediate suppression of fire was important. A similar study conducted in Olympia National Park in 1978 illustrated this conflict between increased awareness about the benefits of fire and the support for fire suppression. About 70% of visitors to the National Park could correctly define the practice of prescribed burning and understood the beneficial effects of fire, yet nearly 65% still wanted fires controlled at all costs (Rauw, 1980).

By the early 1980s, researchers in the human dimension side of wildland fire observed a shift in public attitude towards less suppression and greater acceptance of fires as a natural part of the ecosystem. A survey conducted in 1981 found that two–thirds of people in Tucson, Arizona, knew about fire's beneficial effects upon the ecosystem (Zwolinski et al., 1982). Of the sample population studied, 84% had heard of prescribed burning and, more surprisingly, 80 percent in this group approved of the practice. During this time, other researchers noted a similar shift in perceptions and attitudes toward wildland fire. During the mid–1980s the trend of increased acceptance of fire as a natural and acceptable part of the ecosystem continued to gather support. McCool and Stankey (1986) returned to the Selway–Bitterroot Wilderness to re–sample visitors about their perceptions and attitudes towards wildland fire. In that thirteen–year period, the public had grown more knowledgeable about fire's effects, and gained an average overall score of 64% on their true/false test compared to 53% scored in 1971. The researchers also found that seven out of ten visitors supported letting fires burn in wilderness areas compared to 38% in 1971. In addition, the relationship between increased fire knowledge still translated into increased acceptance of less restrictive fire management policies. The research by Stankey (1976) and later by McCool and Stankey (1986) in the same study area illustrates a good example of the trend of increased support for alternative fire management options during the 1970s and 1980s.

Finally, in 1985, a milestone was reached by a study surveying visitors' attitudes and perceptions of wildland fire policy in Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness (Patton and Oliver, 1985). Researchers in this study found that not a single visitor preferred a suppression–only wildland fire policy. Education about the benefits of fire's re–introduction into the ecosystem and the role of fuel management had gathered enormous momentum. The period had come when through education the public had rejected a single–minded approach to the management of wildland fire. Education about wildland fire had finally accomplished the task of rejecting suppression as the sole management option, at least in this study sample. Today, each wildland fire management technique, whether prescribed fire or suppression, has a correct time and place. Believing too strongly in one management option, such as prescribed fire, is irresponsible since each management option is a tool for a specific situation. Each situation must be carefully analyzed to determine the best management tool for the desired outcome.

For a wildland fire communicator, any shift in the public's attitudes and perceptions toward acceptance of an array of wildland fire management options is of great importance. The reason for this importance is because there is no longer one answer regarding how to manage wildland fires, a luxury our predecessors may have had. Therefore, a wildland fire communicator must be able to educate the public on a number of different wildland fire management techniques and policies that are relevant to a particular area. As a fire communicator, you must be knowledgeable about numerous facets of the wildland fire field, both pros and cons, in order to increase public understanding.

The public's attitudes and perceptions tend to shift with events. For example, now in midsummer 2000, the effect of the Cerro Grande (Los Alamos) fire on public opinion is being closely monitored. In order to effectively educate the public, the wildland fire communicator must be aware of these changes. Otherwise, the communicator's message may be outdated or even unnecessary. The process of determining public attitudes and perceptions is dynamic. It is therefore your responsibility as a wildland fire communicator to be aware of your audience and their perceptions and attitudes before communicating your message. With this accomplished, you are in a better position to effectively and efficiently reach your audience, and in the process, become a better wildland fire communicator.

References

Carpenter, E.H. et al. 1986. Targeting audiences and content for forest fire information programs. Journal of Environmental Education 17(3):33–41.

Cortner, H.J. et al. 1984. Public support for fire management policies. Journal of Forestry 82:359–361.

Cortner, H.J., P.D. Gardner, and J.G. Taylor. 1990. Fire hazards at the urban wildland interface: What the public expects. Environmental Management 14(1):57–62.

DeBano, L.F., D.G. Neary, and P.F. Folliott. 1998. Fire's Effects on Ecosystems. New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Folkman, W.S. 1979. Urban users of wildland areas as forest fire risks. USDA Forest Service research paper, Berkley, CA. 22 pp.

Fuller, M. 1991. Forest Fires. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Gardner, P.D. and H.J. Cortner. 1985. Wildland–urban fires in semi–arid environments: A southern California study of homeowner perceptions and public policy preferences. In O. Templer (Ed.), Forum of the Association for Arid Lands Studies, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting. Texas Tech University, International Center for Arid and Semi–Arid Land Studies, Lubbock, TX. pp. 129–133.

Manfredo, M.J., M. Fishbein, G.E. Haas, and A.E. Watson. 1990. Attitudes towards prescribed fire policies. Journal of Forestry July. pp. 19–23.

McCool, S.F. and G.H. Stankey. 1986. Visitor attitudes toward wilderness fire management policyâ1971–84. USDA Forest Service research paper INT–357, Ogden, UT. 7 pp.

Nielsen, C. and T. Buchanan. 1986. A comparison of the effectiveness of two interpretative programs regarding fire ecology and fire management. Journal of Interpretation 2(1):1–10.

Patton, T. and M. Oliver. 1985. Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Fire Management Plan, final draft. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. 194 pp.

Pyne, S.J., P.L. Andrews, and R.D. Laven. 1996. Introduction to Wildland Fire, second edition. New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Rauw, D.M. 1980. Interpreting the natural role of fire: Implications for fire management policy. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Fire and Forest Meteorology. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. pp. 228–233.

Stankey, G.H. 1976. Wilderness fire policy: An investigation of visitor knowledge and beliefs. USDA Forest Service research paper INT–180, Ogden, UT. 17 pp.

Taylor, J.G. and T.C. Daniel. 1984. Prescribed fire: Public education and Perception. Journal of Forestry 82:361–365.

Taylor, J.G. et al. 1986. Recreation and fire management: Public concerns, attitudes, and perceptions. Leisure Sciences 8(2):167–187.

Shelby, B. and R.W. Speaker. 1990. Public attitudes and perceptions about prescribed burning. In, Walstad, J.D., S.R. Radosevich, and D.V. Sandberg (Eds.), Natural and Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. pp. 253–260.

Zwolinski, M.J. et al. 1982. Public support for fire management policies in recreational land management. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, School of Renewable Resources. 160 pp.

Author: Kevin Clute