Southerners’ Attitudes About Prescribed Fire

Prescribed burns that are implemented to achieve the objectives of reducing wildfire risks, restoring historical fire regimes, and improving recreation tend to be more acceptable to the public (Shelby and Speaker 1990).  The public does not feel as positive about prescribed burning if there is a risk the burn will escape its boundaries, if it reduces water or air quality, if it obstructs a scenic view, and if it interferes with recreation (Shelby and Speaker 1990).  Personal experiences or memories of escaped prescribed fires discourage people from supporting the use of fire to reduce fuel build-up (Winter and Fried 2000).  People who have more experience with a fuel reduction method are more likely to support it than if the fuel reduction method is not personally important to them (Vogt, Winter, Fried 2002).  People who are not accustomed to fire are more likely to oppose the use of fire and the presence of smoke from fire (Butry, Pye and Prestemon 2002).

Fire is a familiar phenomenon to many Southerners, especially those who live, work or recreate in rural places.  Many Southern farmers, hunters, and woodsmen know how to use fire to achieve their objectives of clearing vegetation, improving pasture, maintaining game habitat, selecting tree species, stock reduction, and reducing wildfire risks.  69% of permanent homeowners near the Apalachicola National Forest in the panhandle of Florida have experienced a prescribed burn on or near their homes (Vogt 2002).  [This contrasts with 18% of permanent homeowners in Colorado and 45% in California who have experienced a prescribed burn near their homes.]   61% of wildland urban interface homeowners in Florida have experienced discomfort from wildfire smoke (Vogt, Winter, Fried 2002).  In north central Florida, more than half of residents were exposed to smoke from wildfires in the severe 1998 fire season and 30% have witnessed fire in natural areas near their homes. 

Many other people who live in the South are not familiar with fire and do not know the meaning of “prescribed fire,” especially in urban areas and among migrants, retirees, and seasonal residents.  Only 50% of the overall population of Florida has heard of prescribed fire (Loomis and others 2000) and only 40% can correctly define “prescribed fire” (Monroe, Jacobsen, and Marynowski 1999).  Regionally, in north central Florida, 37% of residents cannot correctly define “prescribed fire” (Monroe, Jacobsen, and Marynowski 1999) even though local managers frequently apply it to the land.  A study comparing English speakers to Spanish speakers in Florida shows that the two language groups vary in their familiarity with prescribed fire (Loomis and others 2000):  65% of English-speakers had heard of prescribed fire and 35% had not while 30% of Spanish speakers had heard of it and 68% had not.

71% of non-industrial private forest (NIPF) owners in the Wiregrass Region of Alabama believe that controlled burning is a useful forest management tool for clearing brush and undesirable trees, reducing wildfire risks, attracting deer and turkey, and improving timber growth (McConnell and Baldwin 1991).  38% of NIPF owners do not believe that controlled burning is useful because they fear that it destroys small trees, damages timber, scares birds and other wildlife, and is not needed in hardwood forests.  35% of NIPF owners who have a favorable opinion of controlled burning learned about it from personal experience with fire or observation of a burn.  Others with a positive opinion of prescribed fire had direct contact with an Alabama Forestry official who taught them about the practice.  The Alabama Forestry Commission is the source that private non-industrial forest (NIPF) owners in the Wiregrass Region of Alabama most frequently use to get formal information about controlled burning (McConnell and Baldwin 1991).  48% of NIPF owners in the Wiregrass Region know of neighbors or acquaintances who use controlled burning on their own property.  66% of those people who have neighbors who burn felt positively about the practice.  26% felt that burning by their neighbors had negatively affected them because the fire had escaped, had burned places that it should not have such as another person’s property, or the fire was too hot.

Comparative studies show that homeowners in Florida have a more positive attitude towards prescribed fire as a method to reduce fuels than people in other parts of the nation, namely California and Michigan.  Florida homeowners, like their counterparts in California and Michigan, support creating defensible space and using mechanical fuel treatments (Loomis and others 2001; Vogt 2002).  In all three states, people seem to share the opinions that they will not support fuel management if it could result in escaped catastrophic fires; if it is not cost-effective; if it could result in long-lasting smoke events; or it if could reduce aesthetic quality of surrounding landscapes.  People do support fuel management that is well planned, includes some level of citizen input, has adequate resources to handle risks, and the size of the area treated is not too large to handle.  Mechanical treatments were preferred close to developed areas.  Agency trust is an important factor for acceptance:  people want to know that fuels management will be handled by competent professionals (Winter and others 2002).

Ethnicity, language, and distance from past wildfire events do not have a significant influence on local support of fuel treatment programs.  Overall, Spanish speakers and English speakers in Florida have similar attitudes towards fire management (Loomis, Bair, and Gonzalez-Caban 2002).  81% of English-speaking and Spanish-speaking households in the wildland urban interface of Florida would support the use of prescribed fire to manage wildland fuel if they receive educational materials in their native language and if the average cost is $115/household/year or less. 

Public support for fuel treatment methods increases as the number of people who believe in the benefits of prescribed fire increases and as the average cost of fuel treatments decrease.  There is no significant difference in willingness to pay for prescribed fire and mechanical fuel reduction between Spanish speakers and English speakers; however, Spanish speakers are more likely than English speakers to refuse to pay anything.  Excluding the people who would refuse to pay anything for fuels management, Spanish speakers and English speakers are equally likely to support prescribed burning and mechanical fuel reduction.  Among Florida residents, the median willingness to pay (WTP) for prescribed fire treatments ($174.38) is higher than for mechanical treatments ($102.05) and both are higher than the median WTP for chemical fuel reduction methods ($-147.28).  Spanish speakers feel that the government, not citizens, should pay for fuels reduction while English speakers believe the government should use existing funds rather than establish new taxes (Loomis, Bair, and Gonzalez-Caban 2002).

In spite of the similarities between the two groups, there are some differences between the knowledge and attitudes of Spanish speakers and English speakers in Florida.  Surveys demonstrate that English speakers in Florida tend to know more about wildfires and prescribed fire and perceive wildfire and prescribed fire risks to be lower than Spanish speakers (Loomis and others 2000).  70% of English speakers say forest managers should put out all fires and 16% say they should not. 48% of Spanish speakers say forest managers should put out all fires and 41% say they should not.  Among English speakers, 25% agree that prescribed fire should not be used because it may cause health problems and 60% disagree.  Among Spanish speakers, 55% agree that prescribed fire should not be used because it may cause health problems and 30% disagree.

In north central Florida, rural and suburban homeowners have an accurate understanding of the role of fire in local ecosystems.  They know the meaning of “prescribed fire” and that it helps to renew forests, that most fires are caused by people rather than lightning, that prescribed fire are less harmful than wildfires, and that Florida’s natural areas benefit from fire (Monroe, Jacobsen, Marynowski 1999).  People in north central Florida believe that there should be stricter regulations on prescribed burning, that fire is beneficial and that prescribed fire should be used to manage Florida’s natural areas, but that having good air quality is more important than burning.  47% of residents in this region of Florida plan to convert from flammable to less-flammable building materials on the home.  42% of residents have taken action to prevent fire damage to their homes by removing vegetation around their homes and 48% are using less-flammable plants in their home landscape.  Homeowners in the panhandle of Florida, however, are less likely than homeowners in Colorado to have been required to remove flammable vegetation near their homes (Vogt 2002).