An Integrative Review of Empirical Research on Perceptions and Behaviors Related to Prescribed Burning and Wildfire in the United States

Vegetation-fire feedbacks increase subtropical wildfire risk in scrubland and reduce it in forests

Climate dictates wildfire activity around the world. But East and Southeast Asia are an apparent exception as fire-activity variation there is unrelated to climatic variables. In subtropical China, fire activity decreased by 80% between 2003 and 2020 amid increased fire risks globally. Here, we assessed the fire regime, vegetation structure, fuel flammability and their interactions across subtropical Hubei, China. We show that tree basal area (TBA) and fuel flammability explained 60% of fire-frequency variance. Fire frequency and fuel flammability, in turn, explained 90% of TBA variance. These results reveal a novel system of scrubland-forest stabilized by vegetation-fire feedbacks. Frequent fires promote the persistence of derelict scrubland through positive vegetation-fire feedbacks; in forest, vegetation-fire feedbacks are negative and suppress fire. Thus, we attribute the decrease in wildfire activity to reforestation programs that concurrently increase forest coverage and foster negative vegetation-fire feedbacks that suppress wildfire.

New types of investments needed to address barriers to scaling up wildfire risk mitigation

Background

Wildfire mitigation is becoming increasingly urgent, but despite the availability of mitigation tools, such as prescribed fire, managed wildfire, and mechanical thinning, the USA has been unable to scale up mitigation. Limited agency capacity, inability to work across jurisdictions, lack of public support, and procedural delays have all been cited as barriers to mitigation. But in the context of limited resources and increasing urgency, how should agencies prioritize investments to address these barriers?

Results

To better understand different investments for scaling up mitigation, we examined how the wildfire problem is framed, building on existing social science demonstrating that agency approaches depend in part on how problems are framed. Using national-level policy documents and in-depth interviews, we found three ways of framing the barriers to scaling up mitigation, each emphasizing certain aspects of the problem and prioritizing different solutions or investments. The first framing, the Usual Suspects, focused on inadequate resources, cumbersome procedural requirements, delays due to litigation, and lack of public support. The solutions-to increase funding, streamline NEPA, limit litigation, and educate the public-suggest that more resources and fewer restrictions will enable agencies to scale up mitigation. The second framing, Agency-Agency Partnerships, focused on the ways that organizational structure and capacity constrain the development of effective cross-boundary collaboration. Here solutions prioritized organizational changes and capacity building to enable agencies to navigate different missions and build trust in order to develop shared priorities. The third framing, Engaging the Public, focused on lack of public support for mitigation, the need for meaningful public engagement and multi-stakeholder collaboration, and investments to build support to scale up mitigation.

Conclusions

This analysis reveals that investing in collaborative capacity to advance agency-agency partnerships and public engagement might not slow down mitigation, but rather enable agencies to "go slow to go fast" by building the support and mechanisms necessary to increase the pace and scale of mitigation work. Reframing the wildfire problem through a careful analysis of competing frames and the underlying assumptions that privilege particular solutions can reveal a broader suite of solutions that address the range of key barriers.

Public and manager perceptions about prescribed fire in the Mid-Atlantic, United States

Firescapes of the Mid-Atlantic are understudied compared to other ecosystems in the United States, and little is known about the acceptance of prescribed fire as a forest management tool. Yet, this region harbors high levels of wildland-urban interface (WUI), has a close intermingling of land ownerships, and reflects substantial regional heterogeneity in burning histories and fire hazards. As prescribed fire is increasingly applied in the Mid-Atlantic as a critical tool to meet various land management objectives, research is needed to help managers understand community perceptions of prescribed fire implementation. Through intercept surveys of forest recreationists and online surveys of fire managers, this study investigates perceptions about prescribed fire use in the Mid-Atlantic, in addition to the critical contributing factors of public support toward prescribed fires. Two states, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, were selected as case studies to explore regional differences in social perception due to their contrasts in fire history, policy, management objectives, and social exposure. Our results show moderate social awareness of local prescribed fires, moderate to high familiarity with prescribed burning, high agency trust, and strong community support toward prescribed fires. However, the perceived concerns and benefits differed between managers and forest recreationists and between recreationists from Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The factors influencing the support of prescribed burning practices included forest management beliefs, concern about prescribed fire effects, familiarity with prescribed fires as a forest management tool, and awareness of local prescribed fires. Collectively, these results highlighted needs in public outreach to strengthen education, build broader community awareness, engage critical stakeholder groups such as forest recreationists, and re-align public outreach messages based on community-level concerns and perceived benefits. Additionally, it will be vital for the scientific community to help monitor critical shifts in forest value orientations and fill in significant research gaps regarding prescribed fire benefits.

What Causes Harmful Algal Blooms? A Case Study of Causal Attributions and Conflict in a Lakeshore Community

Environmental management involves the complex interaction between identifying the causes of problems and implementing solutions. Our exploratory study draws on attribution theory to analyze the causal attributions among community members experiencing frequent and intensifying harmful algal blooms in a lake of western New York State. Our interviews (n = 21) revealed that causal attributions were grounded in observation but that scientific observations led to very different causal attributions than direct observations among a subset of the lay public. Some community members also developed causal attributions based on their social relationships. Differences in causal attributions became the basis of widespread intracommunity disagreement, which in turn hampered management efforts. Our work demonstrates the need for meaningful public engagement in water management-engagement that addresses causal beliefs within the community, even if those beliefs may not align with scientific understandings.

Local Perceptions of Fires Risk and Policy Implications in the Hills of Valparaíso, Chile

Climate change is increasing the occurrence of natural disasters worldwide, and more frequent and intense fires represent one of the most destructive expressions of this trend. Chile is highly vulnerable to climate change, and fires are a recurrent phenomenon affecting many people each year. To reduce fire risk, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests reducing both exposure and vulnerability through multiple initiatives, which demand increased community engagement. In such a context, this study explores local perceptions of fire in a sample of inhabitants in a wildland-urban interface (WUI) in Valparaiso, a city that is affected by numerous fires each year. The ultimate goal was to identify psychological and community factors that should be taken into consideration to develop prevention plans and safer environments for people living in a context of poverty and social inequity. Using a qualitative approach, 28 interviews were conducted and analyzed following grounded theory principles. Results identified multiple causes, impacts, and characteristics of the problem perceived by people who permanently cohabit with fire risk, showing that for many of them, fire risk is not about the probability of occurrence of a disaster, but a question about when and how the next fire will happen. However, in such a complex scenario, psychological, community, and structural barriers deter people from implementing more effective actions. Conversely, in emergency situations, such barriers are irrelevant and cooperative actions prevail, suggesting the existence of resources and capacities within the community that could lessen exposure and vulnerability if activated on a day-to-day basis. Overall, reducing fire risk cannot be achieved by local communities alone nor without their support. To build, maintain, and consolidate fire prevention actions, it is critical to activate community strengths and cooperation and engage the resources and management capacity of local governments.

Exploring the 'Issue-Attention Cycle': Does Length of Time Since Wildfire Predict Social Acceptability of Prescribed Burning?

Social acceptability of environmental management actions, such as prescribed burning used to reduce wildfire risk, is critical to achieving positive outcomes. However, environmental managers often need to implement strategies over a long time period, and sustaining long-term community support can be challenging. Public attention to environmental issues is argued to vary over time, with acceptability of management interventions theorized to decrease with time since experiencing an environmental problem. However, it is unknown whether a person needs to personally experience the problem to maintain support, or if hearing about it in the media is sufficient. In this paper we explore whether acceptability of prescribed burning used to reduce wildfire risk declines with length of time since personally experiencing a wildfire. In a sample of 4390 Australians, acceptability of prescribed burning was not predicted by length of time since personally experiencing a wildfire, or perceptions of wildfire risk. Significant predictors included perceptions of local fuel loads, and of positive and negative impacts of prescribed burning, suggesting addressing these issues may be more effective in maintaining long-term support for wildfire management policies than investing in increasing attention to wildfire risk. This suggests environmental managers can design communication strategies to maintain support for environmental actions even in the absence of an individual personally experiencing the problem the action is designed to address.