There are a number of benefits from wildland fire such as forest reproduction, habitat improvement, and reduction of threats from insects and diseases. However, along with these benefits are threats to human life, property and air quality. The trade-off between wildfire benefits and costs causes differences in public beliefs about fire management. We surveyed residents of the wildland-urban interface to determine the effects of contextual factors such as location of the forest, its primary use, wildfire history, and current fire conditions on acceptability of prescribed burning, mechanical thinning, and doing nothing. The current condition of the forest was the most important factor influencing support/opposition of management strategies for both individualists and non-individualists. The importance of forest proximity, wildfire history, and forest use depended on the management strategy under consideration and group. Results will help inform land managers in making fire management prescriptions and communicating with the public about those decisions.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||11|
|Journal||Human Ecology Review|
|State||Published - Dec 1 2007|
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Geography, Planning and Development
- Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law