Public Perceptions of Wildfire Risk and Forest Management in the Central Pine Barrens of Long Island (USA)

The Australasian Journal of Disaster
and Trauma Studies
ISSN:  1174-4707
Volume : 2008-2

Public Perceptions of Wildfire Risk and Forest Management
in the Central Pine Barrens of Long Island (USA)

Robert L. Ryan Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003-9328, USA

Mark B. Wamsley Program and Outreach Assistant Highland Community Initiative, The Trustees of Reservations Haydenville, Massachusetts, USA

Abstract

Public Perceptions of Wildfire Risk and Forest Management
in the Central Pine Barrens of Long Island (USA)

Introduction

Rapid development at the urban fringe is increasing the amount of people who live near wildland areas across the globe. In the high-density, northeastern United States some of the fastest urbanizing areas are located within the coastal pitch pine barrens of New York’s Long Island, New Jersey’s Pinelands, and Massachusetts’s Cape Cod. The pine barrens are home to some of the region’s most endangered plant and animal species (Irland, 1999). Unfortunately, new residential development along with a history of fire suppression has created a precipitous loss in habitat and threatens to overwhelm this ecosystem. Environmental managers are struggling to protect and regenerate the pine barrens, yet at the same time, they must contend with the many new residents who live next to preserved forest reserves.

Fire suppression has also created a hazardous situation for the people living in the interface. While wildfire disasters are often associated with the more arid western United States, other regions of the country including the pine barrens of the Northeast have a history of wildland fires. In fact, the United States government has identified over 200 communities in the Northeast as being at risk from wildland fires (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2000). This risk is compounded by the fact that the Northeast has the highest population density of any region in the country. Environmental managers in the region are beginning efforts to reduce the amount of fuel in the overgrown forests and to re-introduce fire as a natural element to regenerate this fire-dependent ecosystem and reduce the danger of catastrophic wildfires. However, little is known about how local residents, many of whom are new to the pine barrens, will react to prescribed fires and forest thinning efforts. Moreover, there is a need to determine the most effective means to educate and inform the public about fuel hazard reduction strategies. While a small body of research has looked at public perceptions of forest management strategies to reduce wildfire risk, the existing studies are far from conclusive and have focused on other regions of the country (Winter et al., 2004). In order to expand this knowledge area and help environmental managers, a survey was conducted of local residents living at the wildland-urban interface of the Central Pine Barrens of Long Island, New York about their perceptions of wildland fire risk and attitudes toward forest management strategies to reduce fire danger.

Background

Previous research suggests that wildland fires straddle the divide between human-caused and natural disasters (Kumagai et al., 2004). While on the one hand, wildfire is a natural phenomenon, the long history of fire suppression in the United States and other countries coupled with the fact that many fires are caused by direct human action, such as arson or accidents means that the public perceives wildfires in different manner depending upon the cause and circumstances (Cohn et al., 2008). Disasters that are considered preventable are looked at differently than those that are acts of nature (Ursano et al., 1994).

For people living with in the wildland-urban interface, the perception of wildfire risk may be lower than the actual risk. The phenomenon is termed, “unrealistic optimism bias” by researchers in the disaster and risk perception fields (Gregg et al., 2004; Weinstein & Klein, 1996). Kumagai and others (2004) propose that this optimism bias is based upon the perception that other people are more at risk than oneself (McCaffrey, 2008) and that wildfires, unlike other natural disasters, can be controlled and managed by natural resource professionals. In areas that have already experienced a wildfire, the public’s perception of risk is also lower, because the thick flammable vegetation has been removed (Gardner et al., 1987). Despite this, post-fire communities are receptive for more information about actions they can take to reduce wildland fire risk (Sturtevant & Jakes, 2008).

Managing fire risk in the wildland-urban interface areas takes a coordinated effort of action at the community-level, such as building regulations and community wildfire preparedness plans; agency action on public land, and individual homeowner actions on their own property (Davis, 1990). The greatest challenge for public fire officials is how to communicate this risk to local residents (Davis, 1990). Previous research suggests that the public’s receptivity to information from public land agencies is influenced by previous experience and level of trust with the agency (Shindler & Toman, 1993; Winter et al., 2004). Moreover, simply supplying hazard risk information to the public does not always result in increased awareness or action (Kumagai et al., 2004; Slovic, 1999).

In the United States, there appears to be a high-level of trust in the USDA Forest Service and other forest agencies ability to fight fires (Winter et al., 2004; Cohn et al., 2008). However, a study in three different regions of the country found that the public had lower trust in the agency to communicate to the public about forest issues (Winter et al., 2004). The public’s trust in agency competence also affected their attitudes toward acceptance of fuel management strategies conducted by agencies to reduce fire danger, such as prescribed fire and forest thinning. The fact that in certain instances, prescribed fires have escaped and caused significant damages, such as the Cerro Grande Fire in New Mexico, highlights this tension between trust in agency action and management (Ryan & Hamin, 2006).

Environmental knowledge about hazards, such as wildfire, may come from a variety of sources. Previous personal experience with wildland fire has been found to influence attitudes toward future risk (Gardner et al., 1987). Knowledge also comes in the form of understanding natural processes, forest management, and impacts of management decisions on fire danger. The public may gain this knowledge through traditional environmental education, such as public information provide by agency programs, newsletter, and media announcements or more informally, through their own experiences in the nearby forests around their homes. Previous experience with wildland fire and environmental knowledge are key variables that impact perceptions of wildland fire risk and attitudes toward hazard reduction strategies, as found in our first study in the Northeast (Blanchard & Ryan, 2007) and in other regions of the United States (Winter & Fried, 2000). Researchers in California found that local residents who had experienced wildfire were more supportive of fuel hazard reduction strategies including mechanical treatments (Cortner et al., 1990). How do resource planners increase the public’s experience with prescribed fire and increase their awareness of the apparent risks associated with wildfire? How can these awareness levels be raised short of the public experiencing a devastating wildfire? To understand the relationship between knowledge and attitudes toward hazard risk, a study was conducted in the Central Pine Barrens of Long Island, New York.

Methodology

Objectives:
This study in the Central Pine Barrens of Long Island, New York focus on three main issues: public knowledge and perceptions of wildland fire risk, support for fire hazard reduction strategies, and opinions about the role of the public in fire management. The goal of the research is to provide local land managers with insights into public perceptions of fire management and assist them in fire hazard reduction planning as well as to inform the larger body of research about the human dimensions of managing wildland fire. Since knowledge about the local ecosystem is often gained informally by what one learns in one’s own yard or surrounding landscape, we were interested in learning how informed local residents were about the landscape characteristics and risk associated with their own residential setting. The objective was to learn more about the influence of site characteristics on local residents’ perceptions of wildfire risk and attitudes toward fuel hazard management techniques. In particular, would local residents who lived in at-risk homes or neighborhoods be more aware of the relative danger from wildfire from nearby forests or vegetation on their own property? How would that compare to the perception of risk as identified by local fire officials and other experts? In particular, we were interested in the role of information and communication on perceptions of risk.

Study Area:
The Central Pine Barrens encompass 102,500 acres in central and eastern Long Island. It is one of the eleven areas in the Northeast identified as being at high risk from wildland fire, due to its namesake stands of fire-prone pitch pine (Pinus rigida) (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2001). Overall, the region presents a varied mix of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and supports one of the highest concentrations of rare, threatened and endangered species in New York. Its sandy, glacial soils also contain a portion of the federally designated sole source aquifer that provides drinking water to greater Long Island (Central Pine Barrens Commission, 2004).

Despite their ecological richness, the Central Pine Barrens are densely populated and highly valuable as real estate. Forest stands grow in a patchwork, separated by farmland, recreation areas, and dense residential and commercial development. Forest stand ownership is split between the Federal, State, and local municipal governments, as well as by private individuals and private not-for-profit organizations. Of these, two of the largest owners of forested land in the Central Pine Barrens are the State of New York, and the U.S. Federal government, under the auspices of the Brookhaven National Laboratory. The presence of the National Laboratory, a center for research on nuclear materials, serves to increase concern over the possible consequences of a large-scale wildland fire in the area. The last such event was the Sunrise Fire in 1995, which was extensive enough to jump one of Long Island’s major east/west highways and eventually charred 5,500 acres. This fire caused wide-scale evacuations and was widely publicized in the national media (Mintz, 1995).

The New York State Legislature passed the “Long Island Pine Barrens Protection Act” in 1993 to protect both the area water supply and the rich species diversity of the area. Affected land included 55,000 of Core Preservation Area, subject to strict curbs on development, and 47,500 acres designated as Compatible Growth Area. To administer the area, the Act established a five member Commission comprised of State, County and local governments, giving them authority for coordinating planning, enforcement and stewardship, including fire management. A resulting 41-member agency Wildfire Task Force is now charged with implementing a prescribed fire program, in addition to conducting training, public awareness efforts and developing an area-wide fire management plan (Central Pine Barrens Commission, 2004).

For this study, two towns in the Central Pine Barrens, Brookhaven (pop. 448,248) and Southampton (pop. 54,712), were selected as the target populations for survey distribution (2000 U.S. Census). Both towns comprise a diverse demographic mix and sprawl over large areas that encompass a number of distinct villages, which are separated by significant tracts of publicly owned forests including a large portion that was affected by the devastating 1995 Sunrise Fire.

Sample and Survey Instrument:
The main objective in selecting the survey sample was to include all homes in the study area that faced a real threat of wildland fire due to their proximity to pitch pine forests or other fire-prone vegetation. Early in the project, local fire and emergency management officials helped researchers identify the neighborhoods at potential wildfire risk. The research team verified at risk site conditions in the field. Neighborhoods under consideration were adjacent to major forest areas and were highly varied from relatively new residential developments of sizeable homes, scattered subdivisions of higher density, older homes, as well as an-established motor home park and U.S. Coast Guard housing. There were a variety of residential lot sizes with differing landscape characteristics, ranging from open lawns with ornamental trees, to thick stands of pitch pine and scrub oak.

A mail survey was distributed to 503 randomly-selected, resident homeowners in Brookhaven (364 surveys) and Southampton (139 surveys). While this sample represents less than one percent of the entire, combined population of the two towns, it is 44% of the total population of 1,136 homes that researchers considered susceptible to damage from wildland fire due to their close proximity to forest tracts. The surveys were color-coded to identify residences considered more or less at-risk for fire damage, and marked with symbols to identify town and neighborhood. Generally, houses considered at higher risk had property contiguous with forested land, or they directly faced a forested tract across a residential-width road. Lesser risk properties were set one to two streets back from the neighborhood/forest interface. Fire and emergency management experts contend that the response of well-equipped local fire departments makes it unlikely that any fire would advance past this point into a neighborhood.

The survey contained a combination of five point Likert-scaled and open-ended questions designed to measure respondents’ beliefs and attitudes towards wildland fire management issues. Community members initially were asked for their opinions on the likelihood of wildland fire damaging their home or property. Following sections elicited residents’ knowledge about prescribed burning and mechanical removal, including their opinion of which hazard reduction strategies might be appropriate on public and private land. Other questions gathered key demographic and property data from the respondents. An initial version of this survey was piloted in Massachusetts’ Plymouth Pine Barrens (Blanchard & Ryan, 2007).

A total of 135 respondents returned surveys for an overall response rate of 26.8%. The majority (81%, n= 109) were from Brookhaven and a smaller percentage were from Southampton (19%, n=26). Demographically, the sample was similar in age (median in their 40’s) and education (51% with a college degree) to the surrounding neighborhoods, although of a slightly higher income with nearly 70% reporting incomes over $60,000. In Southampton, the respondents differ somewhat from the overall census tracts and tended to be slightly older with 32% in their 40’s and have a much higher rate of formal education (48% with at college degree compared to 13.9%). Many of these differences between the survey sample and general population may be due to the fact that this survey targeted single-family property owners who would in general be higher income.

All respondents to the study listed themselves as year-round residents with a mean length of residence of 11.8 years in their current home and a mean residency of 21.7 years in that part of Long Island. Residents generally owned small parcels of land (with a mean of .89 acres), that they described as being adjacent to the forest (61%), and vegetated with scattered trees and lawn (55.6%), deciduous forest (29.3%), or coniferous forest (27.1%). Most respondents (76.2%) said that they visited local parks and other public land for recreation infrequently (i.e., once a month to once a year). Much smaller numbers (14.1%) indicted that they frequently visited these locales (i.e., once a day to once a week).

Once the survey results had been analyzed, they were presented to a meeting of the Central Pine Barrens Commission’s Wildfire Task Force. This group of fire officials, land managers, and environmental organization representatives gave valuable feedback for interpreting the survey results described in this paper.

Results

Risk Perception and Experience of Wildland Fire:
Survey results revealed ambivalence towards personal risk from wildland fire among at-risk residents in the Central Pine Barrens, yet rather extensive personal experience with wildland fire. To measure risk perception from wildland fire, the survey first asked respondents how likely it was that their property would be destroyed or damaged by wildland fire, and then asked them to elaborate on their responses. Respondents were aware of some risk posed by wildland fire, but most ranked their own risk as unlikely (33.3%), or only somewhat likely (40%), with a mean score of 2.59 on a 5-point Likert scale (1=very unlikely to 5=very likely). Our earlier survey in the Plymouth Pine Barrens of Massachusetts found an almost identically low perception of risk, which suggests some regional uniformity in risk perception from wildfire (Blanchard and Ryan, 2007).

This ambivalence, or apparent lack of concern, does not appear to be associated with lack of knowledge. On the contrary, respondents’ notes demonstrated a keen awareness of their home’s proximity to forested areas, the condition of vegetation on their own properties, and an overall awareness of local forest characteristics and general fire history. Those who felt that their risk of fire damage was low often cited distance from forested land, the presence and quality of local fire stations, or recent fires that had already cleared overgrown brush. Others felt that forested land was close enough to their property to increase their personal risk. There was congruence between perceptions of risk and actual wildfire risk. Notably, respondents from homes that researchers classified as having a higher-risk of fire damage reported a significantly higher risk perception that a forest fire would occur that destroyed their home or property than those whose homes were in lower risk areas according to our classification (means: High Risk Homes = 2.83, Low Risk Homes =2.42; t =2.47; p< .05).

Respondents did demonstrate strong feelings about their experiences with wildland fires and their possible causes. Sixty-three percent of respondents had experienced a brush or forest fire in their area and many of those had been evacuated from their homes. Even experiences with smaller brush fires elicited expressions of fear for property and personal safety.

When asked about the causes of wildland fires in their area, sixty-four percent of respondents attributed the source to accidental human actions (Table 1). Participants elaborated with often angry comments that activities such as children playing with fireworks and people riding all terrain vehicles on forest trails increased wildfire risk. Subsequent feedback from local fire officials supported the notion that the majority of fires in the Central Pine Barrens are human caused, either accidental or intentional.

Table 1. Attribution of Wildland F ire Causes

What do you believe is the most common cause of brush and forest fires in your area?	Valid %
Accidental Human Causes	63.8
Intentional Human Causes	16.9
Don’t Know	12.3
Natural Causes	6.9
Total	100.0

Knowledge and Opinions of Prescribed Burns and Mechanical Removal:
After reading brief descriptions of prescribed fires and of mechanical removal of brush and trees, respondents were asked about their knowledge and opinions about these fire hazard reduction strategies using a 5-point Likert scale (1=not at all to 5=a great deal). Overall, respondents reported only a minimal awareness of the use of prescribed fire in general (mean= 2.48), and even less about its use in the Central Pine Barrens (mean= 1.69). Only residents who lived in this area of Long Island for an extensive period of time, 31 years or more, were significantly more familiar with the use of prescribed fire, both in general (mean=3.10, p<.01), and in the Central Pine Barrens (mean= 2.24, p< .01) than were newer residents.

Study respondents’ familiarity with mechanical removal strategies (e.g., using chainsaws and heavy equipment to thin the forest) was also very low (mean= 2.18). However, they were somewhat more familiar with the use of firebreaks to stop brush and forest fires (mean= 2.51). The higher awareness of firebreaks may be attributed to their strong visual impact and from their reported recreational use by local hikers and horseback riders.

The survey results showed that local resource managers have a long way to go to teach the public about hazard management strategies (Table 2). Almost half the respondents had no knowledge about prescribed fire. The remainder reported that their knowledge of local prescribed fires primarily came from local newspapers (20.9%) and TV/radio (16.4%) with only a small percentage learning from other sources, such as brochures or public meetings. There is a need to extend community outreach through workshops and direct mailing.

Table 2. Information Sources for Prescribed Fire

Where did you learn about area prescribed fires?	% of Respondents***
No Knowledge	52.2
Local Newspaper	20.9
TV/Radio	16.4
Other:	11.9
Public Notice	3.0
Person. Experience	3.0
Mail Info	2.2
Attend Program	1.5
Brochures	0.7

*** A total of 134 individuals responded to these questions.
Column shows the percentage of those individuals that chose the information source described.

The next question asked study participants their opinions about the costs and benefits of prescribed fires (Table 3). Residents’ concerns centered on possible harm to wildlife and habitat from prescribed fires (mean= 3.81), as well as the prospect of prescribed fires escaping out of control (mean= 3.64). Those concerns were countered by perceptions that prescribed fires reduce the severity of wildfires (mean= 3.72), and improve and maintain forest health (mean= 3.59).

As one participant eloquently stated, “We have a great amount of deer and rare salamanders, frogs and snakes in our area. I fear that we might lose many of them in a controlled burn...I live here for the wildlife and the forests surrounding us.”

Participants were also given the option of indicating if they did not feel qualified to respond to these questions. Respondents felt very confident indicating their concerns, but a larger percentage from 11-19% depending upon the particular item indicated they did not feel qualified to rate the environmental benefits of prescribed fire.

Table 3. Risks and Benefits of Prescribed Fire

How concerned are you about the following risks associated with prescribed fires?	1 = not at all	2 = a little	3 = some-what	4 = a lot	5 = a great deal	X = not qualified to respond	Mean	S.D.
Harm to wildlife and habitat	7.7%	13.1%	12.3%	23.8%	42.3%	0.8%	3.81	1.32
Fire escaping out of control	6.9%	15.3%	17.6%	26.7%	32.8%	0.8%	3.64	1.28
Smoke impacts on health of residents	16.2%	20.0%	20.0%	18.5%	23.1%	2.3%	3.13	1.41
Appearance of post-burn areas	26.0%	22.1%	18.3%	18.3%	14.5%	0.8%	2.73	1.41
Smoke causing car accidents	33.1%	26.9%	16.2%	15.4%	6.2%	2.3%	2.33	1.27
How much do you agree that the following are benefits of the use of prescribed fire?
Reduces severity of wildfires	3.9%	7.8%	25.0%	24.2%	27.3%	11.7%	3.72	1.13
Improves and maintains forest health	5.4%	10.0%	22.3%	23.8%	23.8%	14.6%	3.59	1.19
Improves and maintains wildlife habitat	14.1%	15.6%	18.0%	16.4%	19.5%	16.4%	3.14	1.41
Reduces invasive plant species	15.5%	12.4%	18.6%	17.1%	17.1%	19.4%	3.10	1.41

Familiarity or knowledge about the use of prescribed fire was a significant factor in differentiating participants’ responses. Those residents who were less familiar with the use of prescribed fire in the Central Pine Barrens were significantly more concerned about the appearance of the landscape after prescribed burns (respective means= 2.35, 2.95; t= 2.39; p<.05, .019), and were more supportive of mechanized removal as a sole fire hazard reduction strategy (respective means: 2.13 and 2.64; t= -2.089; p<.05) than those that were more familiar with prescribed fire.

Compared to prescribed fire, the mechanical removal of brush and trees registered less concern from the survey sample (Table 4). The respondents indicated some concern about the potential for soil erosion, but the rather gentle topography of the Central Pine Barrens may explain why these concerns were not greater. The appearance of the forest after thinning was only a great concern to 15% of the respondents. However, the potential for mechanical vegetation removal to damage to wildlife habitat evoked a significantly higher response (mean= 3.44) with almost a third of respondents being greatly concerned.

Table 4. Concerns about Mechanical Removal of Brush and Trees

How concerned are you about the following risks associated with mechanical removal of brush and trees?	1 = not at all	2 = a little	3 = some-what	4 = a lot	5 = a great deal	X = not qualified to respond	Mean	S.D.
Damage to wildlife habitat	15.3%	14.5%	10.7%	23.7%	32.1%	3.8%	3.44	1.48
Erosion of exposed soils	14.5%	15.3%	19.8%	29.0%	16.8%	4.6%	3.19	1.32
Appearance of forest after removal	19.8%	21.4%	24.4%	16.0%	15.3%	3.1%	2.85	1.35

Support for Fire Hazard Reduction Strategies:
When presented with a variety of fire hazard reduction strategies for publicly-owned land in their area, respondents clearly preferred that managers engage in hazard reduction efforts as opposed to taking no action at all (Table 5). Only 8% of the respondents indicated a great deal of support for taking no action to reduce fire danger on public land. These results suggest that participants consider wildfire a hazard that can and should be managed. In particular, respondents showed slightly higher support for using constructed firebreaks on public forest land (mean=3.50) than for other hazard reduction strategies, such as prescribed fire by professionals and mechanical removal of brush and trees. Respondents who owned small parcels of land (between 0.1 and 0.4 acres) were more supportive of taking no actions to reduce fire hazard on public land (mean= 3.19, p<.005) as compared to those who owned more acreage.

Table 5. Support for Management Strategies

What is your level of support for the following strategies on public land?	1 = not at all	2 = a little	3 = some-what	4 = a lot	5 = a great deal	X = not qualified to respond	Mean	S.D.
Constructed firebreaks	7.9%	13.5%	21.4%	27.8%	24.6%	4.8%	3.50	1.25
Mechanical removal of brush and trees	11.8%	15.7%	27.6%	19.7%	18.9%	6.3%	3.19	1.29
Prescribed fire by professionals	15.7%	18.1%	22.0%	20.5%	18.1%	5.5%	3.08	1.36
No action	44.8%	5.7%	19.5%	9.2%	8.0%	12.6%	2.20	1.40

A follow-up question looked at participant’s responses to different management approaches and rationales (Table 6). Managing fuel zones around communities received the highest amount of support of any hazard reduction strategy for the forests of the Central Pine Barrens (mean= 3.79) with a full third of respondents indicating the highest level of agreement. The strongest support for such managed fuel zones came from residents living in higher risk locations (means: higher risk= 4.06, lower risk= 3.59; t= 2.13; p<.05), as well as those claimed the most familiarity with constructed firebreaks (means: more familiarity= 4.10, less familiarity=3.42, t= 3.08; p<.005). Some study participants based their responses on their own observations of the overgrown state of the neighboring forests, “Brush and such… is getting very thick and needs to be thinned out.”

As was found in the previous question (Table 5), prescribed fire continued to be less favored than constructed firebreaks. This was true even though respondents generally agreed that fire was a natural process in the forests of the Central Pine Barrens (mean= 3.38; Table 6). One comment from a local resident highlights some of the reasons: “My most major concern is the beautiful wildlife. I think controlled “mechanical” means would cause less death to deer, etc. giving them a chance to leave. They might get caught in the “fires.”

It was interesting that participants indicated a higher support for using prescribed fire in conjunction with mechanical forest thinning (mean=3.03) than for using only mechanical thinning (mean=2.44), which suggests that while participants may have concerns about prescribed fire, they have an understanding of the need for multiple hazard reduction approaches.

There was very little support for allowing prescribed fire on private land by owners (mean= 1.92). Participants may not trust private land owners’ abilities to safely undertake a prescribed fire, even though historically these often occurred. However, respondents more familiar with the use of prescribed fire (Means: >=3 = 2.21, <3 = 1.59; t= 2.79; p<.01) were significantly more willing to allow prescribed fires on private lands that those with less familiarity.

Table 6. Attitudes toward Fire Reduction Strategies

How much do you agree with the following statements about fire reduction measures?	1 = not at all	2 = a little	3 = some-what	4 = a lot	5 = a great deal	X = not qualified to respond	Mean	S.D.
Managed fuel zones should be used around forests	6.3%	7.9%	18.9%	26.0%	33.9%	7.1%	3.79	1.22
Fire natural process in Central Pine Barrens	10.2%	16.4%	20.3%	24.2%	24.2%	4.7%	3.48	1.32
Prescribed fire should be used with mechanical removal	17.1%	17.1%	21.7%	16.3%	18.6%	9.3%	3.03	1.40
Prescribed fire should be used to improve wildlife habitat	18.8%	17.2%	29.7%	13.3%	14.1%	7.0%	2.86	1.32
Prescribed fire too dangerous to be used	26.9%	24.6%	19.2%	11.5%	12.3%	5.4%	2.55	1.36
Only mechanical removal should be used.	29.9%	20.5%	20.5%	9.4%	10.2%	9.4%	2.44	1.35
Prescribed fire okay near homes if done right	35.4%	20.0%	20.0%	10.0%	8.5%	6.2%	2.32	1.32
By-laws should require fire-resistant vegetation	51.2%	8.7%	15.7%	6.3%	7.9%	10.2%	2.01	1.35
Private land owners should be allowed to use prescribed fire	56.5%	10.7%	16.0%	3.8%	8.4%	4.6%	1.92	1.31

As found in other risk hazard assessment scenarios (Slovic, 1999), there were gender differences in responses to potential wildfire strategies and risk. Male respondents were significantly more likely to support using prescribed fire on private land than were women (means: males = 2.24, females = 1.62; t= 2.69; p<.01). In general, male respondents seemed less concerned about the risks associated with prescribed fire, agreeing with the statement that prescribed fire could even be used close to homes if precautions were taken (means: males = 2.68, females = 1.91; t= 3.36; p<.001). In contrast, female respondents more strongly agreed with the statement that prescribed fire is too dangerous and should not be used at all (means: males = 2.22, females = 2.91; t= -2.90; p<.005).

Attitudes toward Public Participation
Questions describing options for public involvement in developing fire hazard reduction programs elicited some of the strongest responses from survey participants (Table 7). There was substantial support for public involvement in advisory committees (mean= 4.09) and focus groups (mean= 4.07) to help develop hazard reduction programs. A suggestion that public education and outreach be included as part of any hazard reduction program received the highest mean of any question on the survey (mean= 4.48) with 88.5% of respondents indicating “4” or “5” on the Likert-scale of agreement with this statement. Fittingly, the suggestion that state and local officials should have the sole responsibility for developing fire hazard reduction programs did not garner much support (mean=2.58), except for a small but significant response from individuals who had experienced wildfires (means: experience= 2.80, no experience = 2.13; t= 2.72; p<.01). This result may support the notion that those who have experienced a wildfire look more to the expert foresters for fire management. One participant outlined a strategy for public involvement: “Public education should be dispensed containing pros and cons and long term environmental impact. Once this knowledge is obtained the residents should be consulted and have a say in what is to be done!”

Table 7 . Attitudes toward Public Participation in Fire Hazard Reduction Programs

How much do you agree with the following statements regarding public involvement in developing fire hazard reduction programs?	1 = not at all	2 = a little	3 = some-what	4 = a lot	5 = a great deal	X = not qualified to respond	Mean	S.D.
Public education and outreach should be included	0.8%	3.1%	6.9%	24.4%	63.1%	0.8%	4.48	.82
Residents should serve on advisory committees	3.9%	2.3%	14.7%	38.0%	40.3%	0.8%	4.09	1.00
Residents should serve on focus groups	3.9%	3.1%	15.7%	35.4%	40.9%	0.8%	4.07	1.03
State and local officials should have sole responsibility	33.3%	12.3%	26.2%	14.6%	11.5%	2.3%	2.58	1.39

Discussion

These study results show the importance of both previous experience with natural disasters and level of knowledge as key variables that influence local residents’ perceptions of wildland fire risk and attitudes toward management strategies to reduce fire danger. In general, those respondents who had experienced a wildfire appeared more aware of the apparent risks. The experience of having to evacuate one’s home made a strong impression on many residents. In the words of one participant, “After the fires of 1995 (and prior ones) where we were advised to leave our home. I feel it’s likely to occur again.” And as another respondent stated, “The pine barrens caught fire some years ago due to high wind condition. The fear of the approaching fire was very sobering….The fear of a wild fire is always in my family’s mind – whatever preventative measures are recommended, I will support 100%.”

This heightened awareness to fire danger even years after the event is in stark contrast to other regions of the country, such as southern California, where residents felt that once a devastating fire had occurred then they were safe from danger (Gardner et al., 1987). Although, some Long Island participants had similar feelings they were the minority, as one stated, “We had the wildfire 8 years ago – it burnt out almost completely. We probably are safe for about 50 years. We now have a little regrowth.” The notion that disaster will not strike again may help explain why many residents who had experienced wildland fire firsthand did not perceive that their homes to be at risk. This overly optimistic outlook about wildand fire risk is supported by previous research in other areas of the country as well as another of our studies in the Northeast (Kumagai et al., 2004; McCaffrey, 2008; Blanchard & Ryan, 2007). The fact that some participants’ felt that a wildfire lessened their risk of future fires; there were certainly more who expressed a heightened awareness. These opposite reactions illustrate the complex nature of risk, as Slovic (1999) describes risk perceptions are as much a social construct as a scientific one.

These prevailing attitudes present a challenge for fire managers who wish to increase the public’s awareness of fire danger near their homes and to promote defensible space projects. Many residents indicated that fire is a natural process in the Pine Barrens and support the need to manage fuels around the forest preserves. However, there was significantly more support for fuel breaks and mechanical thinning of forests to buffer residential areas from flammable forests than there was for using prescribed fire as a management tool. While the public acknowledged the benefits of prescribed fire for ecological health, concerns regarding the risks of fire escaping and smoke appeared to outweigh the benefits. In the words of one participant, “Any fires in the Pine Barrens should be stopped. Long Island is open to winds from the ocean. I don’t believe in prescribed fires. Fires in the Pine Barren (any of them) are very dangerous. (Don’t do it).”

One strategy for overcoming the public’s reluctance about prescribed fire is to increase awareness and knowledge about this management tool. The study found that those residents who were more familiar with prescribed fire were more supportive and less concerned about issues like smoke. However, almost half of the sample had no knowledge about the use of prescribed fire in the area, which suggests that local land managers should consider increasing their public outreach efforts. Those who had heard about prescribed fire indicated that local newspapers and television and radio were their primary sources of information. The local newspaper in particular may be a cost-effective way to increase knowledge about forest management practices. In addition, some study participants suggested using web-pages to distribute information about local forest ecology, management, and residential landscaping.

In addition to actually experiencing a wildland fire firsthand, awareness of fire danger also came from news about recent disastrous fires in other regions of the country. As one local resident noted, “Can parallels be drawn between the recent bad fires in California and rapid development/clearing forests here – so that residents of the Central Pine Barrens can see the urgency more clearly?”

The issue for land managers is how they promote fire prevention among new residents to the area who may have not yet experienced one of the region’s devastating fires. This is particularly true in the Northeast where fire intervals may be longer than in the more arid forests of the western United States, and where many adjacent forest types are less flammable. McCaffrey (2008) describes the need to keep wildfire risk information current. For example, the public needs to be told about changes in environmental conditions, such as when re-vegetation in old burn areas has increased risk. Changes in other environmental conditions such as seasonal risk and drought, as well as potential sources of ignition need to be communicated.

Unlike other natural hazards, reducing wildland fire danger is an achievable management objective. However, it may conflict with other management objectives, such as scenic preservation or biodiversity (Ryan, 2005; Shindler et al., 2002). For natural resource managers who are interested in promoting the native pitch-pine ecosystem, biodiversity goals that are combined with fuel hazard reduction may have much stronger support from local residents. Of course, managers need to provide evidence that this approach will indeed benefit wildlife and native plants, because there is often an attitude among these suburban residents that nature is best left alone. As one resident stated, “Leave the woods alone. If we wanted to live in a concrete jungle, we would move to NYC [New York City]. The woods have been here for generations. Ever notice when humans try to fix nature, the outcome is never a better habitat.”

Despite experience with uncontrolled wildland fires, there continues to be the perception that wildland fires are human-caused and can be managed. This puts wildfires in a different category than other natural disasters, such as volcanoes or earthquakes (Ursano et al., 1994). Several residents supported this viewpoint by stating that fire department coverage is adequate to protect their homes. In the words of one participant, “I think the fire department will respond in time.” An in the words of another, “In all my years living here we have not had our home threatened, thanks to our great fireman.” Or another respondent said, “Fire department responds quickly.” Other residents, however, expressed concern about the many volunteer rural fire departments ability to respond and handle large fires.

Local fire officials also disagree about the level of risk. They are proud of the new fire stations that have been built since the catastrophic Sunrise Fire of 1995, yet many acknowledge that many new homes have been built in the Pine Barrens since this time. Thus, while response time to fight wildland fires has improved, so has the number of homes and people at risk.

Local disaster managers are challenged to raise awareness to wildland fire danger and to show how local residents can assist fire officials in their desire to lower brush levels near homes and improve response times. Previous research suggests that rather than increasing knowledge alone, trust in local agencies is key to any communication about risk in general (Slovic, 1999) and wildfire danger in particular (Cohn et al., 2008; McCaffrey, 2008). Residents’ previous relationships with natural resource agencies color their receptivity to preparedness information (Shindler & Toman, 2003). Fortunately, in this study area, there appears to be high level of trust in local fire agencies’ abilities to manage wildland fire.

Community preparedness efforts also need to tie into existing social structures as one means to help distribute information and organize efforts for wildfire preparedness (Sturtevant & Jakes, 2008). However, unlike more natural resource-based communities, the suburban residents of the Long Island’s pitch pine barrens have little contact with local land management agencies. Therefore, it is not surprising that their knowledge of current efforts to conduct prescribed fire is limited. Thus in more urban areas, natural resource managers need to expand outreach efforts in general as a means of distributing specific information about wildland fire danger. Partnering efforts with local fire agencies which already have the respect of local residents is one strategy. Another is to engage local residents in volunteer stewardship programs to help manage the pine barren ecosystems (Burns et al., 2008; Ryan et al., 2001).

Since the wildland-urban interface may include thousands of residents, the challenge for financially-constrained agencies is where to concentrate limited resources for public outreach. In the current study, the strongest support for managed fuel zones (i.e., firebreaks and tree thinning) came from those whose properties were considered to be at the highest risk by local land managers and fire officials. Thus, land managers may find their strongest supporters among residents who live adjacent to forest preserves. Targeting educational efforts and public meetings with these residents may be an efficient way to promote fuel hazard reduction projects. Furthermore, these residents are the most likely people who would be interested in participating in forest planning efforts or advisory groups. This is particularly important because the study results indicate that local residents strongly feel that the public should be involved in fire hazard reduction plans. Slovic (1999) suggests that since risk assessment is by nature a social construct, there is a need for more of this type of public participation to avoid the inherent mistrust and conflict found in traditional disaster planning. Future research is needed to study the collaborative partnerships and public participation approaches that best address the complex issue of reducing wildland fire danger near urban areas (Sturtevant & Jakes, 2008).

The issue of wildfire management is extremely timely in rapidly growing urban areas that abut high-hazard natural areas worldwide. Increasing local residents’ knowledge and experience about management techniques to reduce wildland fire danger is critical, both on public land as well as on private land, as means of gaining public support for controversial tools such as prescribed fire. Natural hazard managers need to partner with local communities to engage them in reducing fire danger around their homes as a means to complement government action on public lands that surround their communities.

References

Blanchard, B., & Ryan, R.L. (2007). Managing the wildland-urban interface in the northeastern United States: Perceptions of fire risk and hazard reduction strategies. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 24 (3), 203-208.

Burns, M.R., Taylor, J.G. & Hogan, J.T. (2008). Integrative healing: The importance of collaborative efforts in postfire recovery and prefire planning. In B. Kent & C. Raisch (Eds.) Wildfire Risk: Human Perceptions and Management Implications (pp. 81-98). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Central Pine Barrens Commission (2004). Where and what are the ‘Central Pine Barrens’ of New York. Fact sheet. Retrieved from the web February 19, 2008. http://pb.state.ny.us/general/ cpb_fact_sheet.htm.

Cohn, P.C., Williams, D.R. & Carroll, M.S. (2008). Wildland-urban interface residents’ views on risk and attribution. In B. Kent & C. Raisch (Eds.) Wildfire Risk: Human Perceptions and Management Implications (pp. 23-43). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Cortner, H. J., Gardner, P. & Taylor, J. (1990). Fire hazards at the urban-wildland interface: What the public expects. Environmental Management, 14(1), 57-62.

Davis, J.B. (2004). The wildland-urban interface: Paradise or battleground? Journal of Forestry, 88(1), 26-31.

Gardner, P.D., Cortner, H.J., & Widaman, K. (1987). The risk perception and policy response toward wildland fire hazards by urban home-owners. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14(2), 163-172.

Gregg C.E., Houghton, B.F., Johnston, D.M., Paton, D. & Swanson, D.A. (2004). The perception of volcanic risk in Kona communities from Mauna Loa and Hualdlai volcanoes, Hawai'i. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 130(3-4), 179-196.

Irland, L. C. (1999). The Northeast’s Changing Forest. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kumagai, Y., Carroll, M.S., & Cohn, P. (2004). Coping with interface wildfire as a human event: Lessons from the disaster/hazard literature. Journal of Forestry, 102(9), 28-32.

McCaffrey, S. (2008). Understanding public perspectives of wildfire risk. In B. Kent & C. Raisch (Eds.) Wildfire Risk: Human Perceptions and Management Implications (pp. 11-22). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Mintz, P. (1995). Wildfire evacuees return home: Long Island blaze declared 90 percent contained. Buffalo News. August 27, 1995, p. 11A.

Ryan, R.L. (2005). Social Science to Improve Fuels Management: A Synthesis on Aesthetics and Fuels Management. General Technical Report NC-261. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.

Ryan, R.L., & Hamin, E. (2006). Engaging communities in post-fire restoration: Forest treatments and community-agency relations after the Cerro Grande Fire. In S. McCaffrey (Ed.) The Public and Wildland Fire Management: Social Science Findings for Managers (pp. 87-96). General Technical Report, NRS-1. Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station.

Ryan, R.L., Kaplan, R. & Grese, R. E. (2001). Predicting volunteer commitment in environmental stewardship programs. Journal. of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(5), 629-648.

Shindler, B., Brunson, M., & Stankey, G.H. (2002). Social Acceptability of Forest Conditions and Management Practices: A Problem Analysis. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-537. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Shindler, B., & Toman, E. (2003). Fuel reduction strategies in forest communities: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Forestry, 101(6), 8-15.

Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19(4), 689-701.

Sturtevant, V., & Jakes, P. (2008). Collaborative planning to reduce risk. In B. Kent & C. Raisch (Eds.) Wildfire Risk: Human Perceptions and Management Implications (pp. 44-63). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior. (2001). Urban wildland interface communities within the vicinity of federal lands that are at high risk from wildfire. Federal Register, 66(160), 43384.

Ursano, R.J., McCaughey, B.G., & Fullerton, C.S. (1994). The structure of human chaos. In R.J. Ursano, B.G McCaughey & C.S. Fullerton (Eds.) Individual and Community Responses to Trauma and Disaster: The Structure of Human Chaos (pp. 403-410). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Weinstein, N.D., & Klein, W.M. (1996). Unrealistic optimism: Present and future. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15(1), 1-8.

Winter, G.J., Vogt, C., & Fried, J. S. (2002). Fuel treatments at the wildland-urban interface: Common concerns in diverse regions. Journal of Forestry, 100(1), 15-21.

Winter, G.J., Vogt, C.A., & McCaffrey, S. (2004). Examining social trust in fuels management strategies. Journal of Forestry, 102(9), 8-15.

Acknowledgement

Funding for this study was provided by the USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station under Cooperative Agreement No. 02-JV-11231300-025. Considerable thanks go to the Wildfire Task Force of the Central Pine Barrens Commission, Long Island, New York for their feedback on the survey instrument and helpful comments about interpreting the survey results. Thanks also go to the residents of Southampton and Brookhaven, New York who participated in this study. Brian Blanchard, now with the USDA Forest Service, developed the initial survey instrument that was modified for this study while working on is Master’s of Regional Planning degree under the supervision of the first author.

Copyright