Obstacles to Implementing Fire Education

Obstacles in fire education

Educating the public about prescribed fire or wildfires can be challenging. In some parts of the South, despite efforts to teach people about the beneficial aspects of fire, common perceptions that persist and that can be obstacles to the public’s acceptance of fire (Clute 2004) are:

• all fire is bad
• fear that fire will damage valuable goods
• fear that smoke emissions from fire will negatively affect health and visibility
• dislike of the aesthetics of burned areas
• dislike of damages caused to forestry-related business
• disagreement with the perceived effects of fire on wildlife
• confusion about information on fire mitigation and fire suppression
• perceived lack of agreement among experts on the role of fire

Smokey Bear: 60 Years of Service

The persistent belief that all fire is bad (Thorsen and Kirkbride 1998) may be linked campaigns (e.g., Smokey Bear) that were launched to teach people to prevent fires in all cases. These campaigns were based on the prevailing policy that promoted fire suppression and fire exclusion from ecosystems. In the past, federal agencies believed that if people were educated, there would be no more unwanted human-caused fires (Shea 1940). In the 1980s and 1990s there was a shift in policy towards fire management and the promotion of prescribed burning for the purpose of reducing wildfire risks that is reflected in a transformation of messages in educational campaigns. Now, it is necessary to relay the new understanding of the beneficial role of fire in ecosystems while at the same time continuing to teach the danger of un-planned, human caused fires. The “Fight Fire with Fire” website, administered by the Florida Division of Forestry, illustrates the tone of more recent educational messages in the statement “Support Prescribed Fire: It is Our BEST Wildfire Insurance.”

Many people are not interested in learning more about fire in general; but some people may be interested in learning specifically about how to protect their homes from wildfire and about air quality and health (Monroe and others 1999). Wildland-urban interface residents near Apalachicola National Forest in Florida tend to be less interested in reading information about protecting their homes from wildland fire than their counterparts in Colorado and California (Vogt 2002). They are also less likely than Colorado or California residents to have attended an interpretive program or a public meeting about wildfire. This low level of interest is coupled with the fact that the Florida residents have comparable experiences with wildfire as did the groups in Colorado and California. The Florida group, however, has much more experience with prescribed fire: “Approximately two-thirds of Florida homeowners had experience with prescribed burning near their home, in comparison to approximately 15 to 20 percent of Colorado homeowners, and 45 percent of permanent and 8 percent of seasonal California homeowners” (Vogt 2002: 69). The Florida residents are more supportive of using prescribed burning to manage fuels than the Colorado and California residents.

People sometimes do not take the actions to reduce fire hazards, even when attempts are made to educate them about fire risks and fire ecology, because other beliefs and perceptions may take precedence over concerns about wildfire risks (Daniel, Weidemann, Hines 2002). Some residents of Volusia, St. Johns, Marion, and Alachua counties in Florida, for instance, have expressed a greater interest in maintaining landscape aesthetics with a ‘natural’ appearance, recreation opportunities, seeing wildlife and providing wildlife habitat, privacy and solitude, neighborhood regulations, and collecting insurance money to re-build a home than in creating defensible space (Nelson and others 2002). For some people, these values override worries about fire risks. Others, however, are willing to create defensible space. The degree of investment in and commitment to a home and community and whether it is a seasonal or permanent home also influences homeowners’ perceptions about fire and actions to mitigate wildfire risks (Vogt 2002).