Toward Understanding the Acceptability of Smoke from Prescribed Forest Burning in the Northern Inland West Matthew S. Carroll Brad R. Weisshaupt William D. Robinson Patricia J. Cohn

Background History and use of fire and fire suppression History and use of fire and fire suppression Fire risk and fuel conditions Fire risk and fuel conditions Forest treatments Forest treatments

Background Smoke is a barrier to prescribed burning Smoke is a barrier to prescribed burning Population growth, air quality regulations, health concerns Population growth, air quality regulations, health concerns

Background Growing body of research on social acceptability of prescribed burning Growing body of research on social acceptability of prescribed burning –Many issues regarding burning –Knowledge of prescribed burning is linked to acceptance

Research Question Gauge the extent of tolerance to smoke from prescribed broadcast burning in the wildland-urban interface of the northern Inland West Gauge the extent of tolerance to smoke from prescribed broadcast burning in the wildland-urban interface of the northern Inland West –Does the origin of smoke make a difference in the acceptability of that smoke ?

Research Rationale Yankelovich: Coming to Public Judgment Yankelovich: Coming to Public Judgment “Working Through” “Working Through” In…hours of objective and balanced discussions, hawks were not transformed to into doves, nor doves into hawks, but many second thoughts in the direction of greater realism were stimulated.” (Yankelovich 1991: 158).

Research Rationale Focus groups Focus groups –Allow for the kind of “working through” that Yankelovich suggests is necessary for successful governance –Are not a substitute for broader public forums, but the dynamics can approximate what happens in such forums

Methods Focus groups Focus groups –Hear alternative perspectives –Work through issues –Discuss trade-offs

Methods Five different population sectors Five different population sectors –Urban –Anti-smoke –Rural –Native American –Recently experienced a wildfire Conducted October 2003-January 2004 Conducted October 2003-January 2004

Methods Topics Topics –Quality of life in the area –Forest conditions –Fire risk –Prescribed burning –Acceptability of smoke Forestry Images

Results Forest conditions and fuel reduction strategies Forest conditions and fuel reduction strategies –Conditions have changed –Harvest, thinning, chipping –Mechanical treatment and burning “There are very few hillsides now that you can climb up… Now you have logs and dead trees and it’s a mess. If there’s a fire, I guarantee it’s going to be a big one.” (Native) “There are very few hillsides now that you can climb up… Now you have logs and dead trees and it’s a mess. If there’s a fire, I guarantee it’s going to be a big one.” (Native)

Results Knowledge of prescribed burning Knowledge of prescribed burning –Definition of prescribed broadcast burning –Types of burning Forestry Images

Results Smoke issues Smoke issues –We can’t expect to live smoke-free –Wildfire smoke vs. prescribed fire smoke “If it is a prescribed burn, there’s the possibility for intelligent smoke management…and it is an inexact science, but at least its better than not having any control over it (smoke) when it goes off.” (Anti- smoke)

Results Smoke sources Smoke sources –Agricultural field burning vs. prescribed forest burning “I can’t expect the whole world to change just because I have asthma. I have to adapt to the fact that I live where I live and there’s smoke.” (Rural)

Results Smoke trade-offs: Smoke trade-offs: “The question before public land managers and citizens is not whether there will be fire and smoke in their future, but how they might want their fire and smoke” (Hessburg and Agee 2003: 49).

Results Similarities across groups Similarities across groups –Smoke from prescribed burns is more acceptable than that from agricultural field burning –Prescribed fire is needed in the WUI… but not necessarily in my immediate backyard! –More education and information

Results Differences across groups Differences across groups –Native Americans –Rural non-native –Urban –Wildfire experience –Anti-agricultural smoke

Discussion Will people tolerate smoke from prescribed broadcast burning if such burning would be a beneficial tool for forest restoration? Will people tolerate smoke from prescribed broadcast burning if such burning would be a beneficial tool for forest restoration?

Discussion Challenges to implementation Challenges to implementation –Education about prescribed broadcast burning –Gain public trust –Fear of escaped fire may be a bigger barrier than smoke Forestry Images

Discussion Recommendations for public involvement Recommendations for public involvement –Standard terminology  Better, specific knowledge of prescribed broadcast burning  Use succinct, easily understandable terminology forest (fôr'ist, fär'-) n. [ME. < OFr. (Fr. forêt) < ML. (silva) forestis, as if (wood) unenclosed (< L. foris, out-of-doors), but prob. (wood) under court control (< L. forum, court, FORUM)] 1. a thick growth of trees and underbrush covering an extensive tract of land; large woods: often used figuratively 2. any of certain tracts of woodland or wasteland, usually the property of the sovereign, preserved for game

Discussion Recommendations for public involvement Recommendations for public involvement –Identify the essence of the concept  What is prescribed burning?  What will prescribed burning do?

Discussion Develop appropriate visual material Develop appropriate visual material –Text and images

Discussion Develop inventory of success stories Develop inventory of success stories –Examples of benefits to forest –Examples of successful fires

Discussion Quantitative research on effective terminology and messages Quantitative research on effective terminology and messages –Which terms are understandable and resonate with the public? –What works for the opposition?

Conclusion Messages for managers Messages for managers –Smoke is tolerable –Tolerance increases with education and information –Bridge the “expert”-public gap on acceptability of smoke