COMMON FACTORS AFFECTING THE SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF FUEL MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES: COMMON FACTORS AFFECTING THE SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF FUEL MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES


Presentation Outline: Presentation Outline Overview and objectives of the study Key findings Application of the findings


Objectives: 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


Slide4: Oscoda, Crawford, Ogemaw, MI Jack pine Many seasonal homes Federal, state forest Moderately frequent Rx fire and wildfire Clay, FL Pine Some seasonal homes Private forest ownership Frequent wild and Rx fire 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 Study Sites


Hypothesized predictors of approval : 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


Slide6: Respondent Fuel Treatment Experiences


Theoretical Framework for Studying Human Acceptance of Fuel Reduction: 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 Belief Strength Likelihood a fuel treatment will produce an outcome Very likely/unlikely Attitude toward fuel treatments Positive/negative Intent to support Acceptance of fuel treatment “Vote for”


Other Fuel Treatments Consistently predictive factors: 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


Trust Findings: Trust Findings Mean of scale where “1” is strongly disagree; “7” strongly agree


Conceptual model, prescribed burning: Allows uncontrolled fires Personal importance of prescribed burning Impacts scenery More smoke now, less later Reduces cost of fire fighting Restores wildlands Improves wildlife conditions B = -.21,-.17,-.26 B = .05, .09, .09 B = .14, .00, .13 B = .17, .20, .25 B = .07, .01, .02 B = .08, .02, .02 B = .34, .41, .27 Prescribed Burning attitude B = .67, .70, .63 Prescribed burning approval R2 = .51, .37, .47 R2 = .64, .53, .65 Note: Beta coefficient (B) in the order CA, FL, MI Boldface type = statistically significant p≤.05 Conceptual model, prescribed burning


Demographics don’t predict acceptance: Demographics don’t predict acceptance Education Gender Household size Employment status Tenure Income Residential status Respiratory ailment status


Implications: 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