This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Playing with Fire: Effects of
Fire in Management of
Southwestern Recreation
Resources 1
Jonathan G. Taylor2
The Importance of Recreation in
Forest Environments
Outdoor recreation is continuing
to increase in the United States. Hendee et al. (1977) estimated that public
use of wilderness areas will increase,
in the 40-year period from 1960 to
2000, by nearly tenfold. A report by
the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS; 1979) showed
rapid growth in such outdoor recreation activities as skiing, snowmobiling, canoeing, and off-road-vehicle
use as well as tremendous growth
potential in the area of primitive
camping. The President's Commission on Americans Outdoors (1987)
reported persistent vigorous interest
in a broad spectrum of outdoor recreation; for example, there were increases from 1960 to 1982 in canoeing
(515%), bicycling (382%), camping
(240%), hiking and backpacking
(199%), and walking for pleasure
(132%). Of the federal land-management agencies, the U.S. Forest Service continues to provide more total
visitor time than any other federal
agency-approximately 2.5 billion
visitor hours in 1984.
The Commission Report also
showed that outdoor recreation trips
'Panel paper presented at the conference, Effects of Rre in Management of
Southwestern Natural Resources (Tucson,
AZ, November 14-17, 1988).
2
Research Social Scientist, National Ecol-
ogy Research Center, U.S. Rsh and Wildlife
Service, Fort Collins, Colo.
are tending to become shorter in both
time and distance. Short trips are
rapidly supplanting older patterns of
2-3 week, long-distance vacations
(fig. 1). The American public is traveling shorter distances to recreate
more often.
The President's Commission also
convened expert panels to identify
major societal trends that might have
important effects on the future of
outdoor recreation. In this context,
the following 10 trends were believed to be the most significant:
1. Changing social and demographic compositionAmerican society is aging.
2. Fluctuating energy availability and cost-These create
uncertainties for recreation
and tourism.
3. Technological innovations-These change the
demands on type and location of outdoor recreation
(e.g., wind surfing, mountain
biking).
This parallels the "megatrend" of increasing participatory democracy.
6. Concern for the environment-A continued high
emphasis on environmental
protection, with specified
emphasis toward environmental health and safety, is
evident.
7. Creation of innovative partnerships-Public and private cooperative efforts in
outdoor recreation are increasing.
8. Shifts in economic strengths
and weaknesses-Employment shifts from manufacture to service and information industry affect time and
money available for outdoor
recreation.
197Z
19112
SHORT
OUI'lNG
-··-20- 36-55.
-ll-20-36-55....-----·-55---
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IN0~~. .- - - - -
21-35.
--ssl
DAY
OUI'lNG
4. Shifts in political power
closer to the people-The
Federal government is releasing control and financing,
increasing authority at local
levels.
5. Increased accountability of
institutions and leaders112
•.INCI~~IIIIII!I-
-21-35111/t:Jl!IIGHT
lltii'S
IN MILES
~~~---101-200-0101-JIJOI
-
0-100
---·-sool
-JOI-500
Figure 1.-Recreatlon trip distance by type
of outing, 1972-1982. (President's Commission on Americans Outdoors 1987).
9. Changes in recreation and
leisure-Technology, fashion, and fad, are changing.
10. Changes in transportation
systems-This influences
how and where Americans
travel for pleasure.
These recreational and societal
trends have implications for the management of forest recreation resources. Western forest managers
should anticipate, at least for the
near term, increasing proportions of
local and regional people using their
recreational resources. Further, because people are taking shorter recreational trips, overall recreational
use may be spread out over a
broader prime season, with less concentration on the traditional overuse
weekends such as Memorial Day,
July 4th, and Labor Day.
Turning specifically to the Southwest, how important is recreation in
forest areas to the public in this region? In a 1981 telephone survey of
1,200 residents of Tucson, Arizona,
Zwolinski et al. (1983, see also Cortner et al. 1984) asked respondents to
rate the relative importance of forest
areas in comparison with other resources. More than 87% responded
that they considered forest areas as
"very important" and 97% rated forest areas as somewhat to very important. Fifty-three percent reported that
they "regularly participate in forest
activities" including hiking (50%),
camping (47%), picnicking (28%),
fishing (19%), hunting (14%), backpacking (6%), and skiing (5%), all of
which are forest recreation activities.
Three percent reported use of forest
areas because they had a forest
home, and 3% reported that they
worked in the forest.
Respondents were asked the importance "to you personally" of a series of resources found in the forest.
Nearly half (47%) of the survey respondents rated "opportunities for
outdoor recreation, such as picnicking, camping, and hiking'' as "extremely important" on a scale of 1 =
not at all important to 10 =extremely
important; 76% rated recreation as 8,
9, or 10 on this 1-to-10 scale. Respondents rated recreation as third in forest resource importance, after "food
for wildlife," (87%, 8-10) and "protection of water supplies" (84%, 810). Recreation was rated more important, by this general public
sample in the Southwest, than "lumber and other wood products" (66%,
8-10), "food for livestock" (47%, 810), "firewood" (33%, 8-10), and "opportunities for hunting'' (29%, 8-10).
The importance attributed to outdoor recreation in forest environments by both the national and regional publics suggests that our National Forests cannot be managed
strictly on a cost-effective basis for
production of such payback commodities as timber and livestock. To
place higher priority on timber, livestock, firewood, and hunting production than on wildlife forage, watershed protection, or recreation would
be to directly contradict public priorities. Because of these changing
and interacting priorities, the U.S.
Congress passed the Multiple Use
Sustained Yield Act in 1960 and the
National Forest Management Act in
1976. As will be seen later, however,
fire managers often follow older, traditional resource value priorities in
making fire-risk decisions.
Short-Term and Long-Term Effects
of Fire Management
Fire can affect recreation in many
ways; these can be separated into
two categories: immediate, shortterm effects and long-term effects.
Short-term effects include the direct
impingement that fire can and will
have on people's recreation decisions, such as "East Rim Trail
CLOSED due to Fire." A second type
- of short-term effect is the impact of
smoke from forest fires on outdoor
recreation in the vicinity.
Long-term effects include the residual impacts, or "scars," left by fire
113
and the ways these affect scenic quality or the recreational acceptability of
a forest area. Other long-term effects
of fire on recreation include potential
tree-fall, "quick soils," and loosened
rocks that may be long-term safety
hazards to recreationists. In this context, it is important not to make the
mistake, all too common, of assuming that recreational acceptability
and scenic quality are one and the
same. They are not equivalent; indeed, acceptability of long-term fire
effects differ from one form of outdoor recreation to another.
Immediate. Direct Effects of Fire
Resource management agencies
are shifting their approaches from
all-out suppression to fire management, including prescribed burning
with attention to the ecological roles
played by fire in different forest
types. These agencies are concerned
whether the public, indoctrinated
with Smokey the Bear ethics, will be
able to accept these changes (Smith
1986). Omi and Laven (1982) reported that public knowledge and
acceptance of prescribed fire in recreational wildlands lagged behind
implementation for several reasons:
interpretations of the Smokey the
Bear message that all fires are detrimental, public concern and legislation related to air quality, and the
lack of consensus among forestry
professionals about the appropriate
timing and specific uses of fire. The
direct effects on the general public of
different fire management practices
should be expected to vary greatly
depending on the level of public
knowledge and acceptance of these
practices.
Conservation organizations, the
news media, and the informed public
are learning more about the natural
role fire plays in forest environments.
The Rocky Mountain News (August
29, 1988) covered the extensive fires
in Yellowstone National Park and
included an informative article on
the beneficial role fire plays in these
forests: "Forest fire and the rebirth of
the ecosystem" (p. 4). National Public
Radio's "Morning Edition" broadcast
a fairly sophisticated discuss~on of
the ecological role of fire in Yellowstone National Park (Sept. 12, 1988).
Surveys also showed growing public
sophistication in understanding the
natural role of fire and in accepting
new fire management practices-perhaps more than many professional
foresters would believe.
Public Knowledge of Fire Behavior
and Effects
McCool and Stankey (1986) found
that public knowledge of fire is increasing. Correct answers to fire
knowledge questions increased from
53% to 64% between 1971 and 1984.
Persistently, the lowest correct response rates were to questions about
animal mortality and fire size. In the
Southwest, both Taylor and Daniel
(1982, 1984) and Zwolinski et al.
(1983) tested public knowledge of
fire behavior and effects. The resulting information from these surveys
gives some indications of where the
public is informed, where misinformed, and where amenable to education.
Taylor and Daniel (1982) developed and tested information brochures designed to educate the public on the effects of fire in ponderosa
pine forests. Their results were
mixed; support for prescribed burning increased and some specific areas
of fire knowledge also increased,
whereas other areas of knowledge
did not. Baas et al. (1985) found that
information about the use of fire,
given to visitors to the Grand Canyon National Park, did not significantly increase their support for prescribed burning or their knowledge
of fire effects.
Haug Associates, Inc. (1968),
found that the adult American public
believed that forest fires caused more
damage than floods, hurricanes, or
earthquakes. Concern centered especially around destruction of timber,
wildlife, and homes and property.
Consistently, the public seems to be
most misinformed concerning the
effects of fire on animal mortality.
This item was among the questions
with the fewest correct answers in
the surveys by McCool and Stankey
(1986), Stankey (1976), Taylor and
Daniel (1982), and Zwolinski et al.
(1983). Two dimensions to this misperception emerge from the southwestern research.
First, the Tucson public exhibited
an unwarranted level of confidence
in their misinformation about animals being killed by forest fires. Although only 8% of the Zwolinski et
al. (1983) sample agreed with the
"expert'' group that "Few animals
are killed by most forest fires," only
4% answered that they "did not
know" how many animals typically
were killed. However, in a pairedcomparison test of the effects of their
fire information brochures on fire beliefs, Taylor and Daniel (1982) found
this dimension significantly changed
by the information treatments
(fig 2). The public is fairly confi-
dent in its misperception of how fire
affects wildlife, but is capable of
being swayed from that position
through education. Smokey and
Bambi have certainly overdone their
jobs; but, perhaps because this is
such a deeply felt issue, the public is
quite educable on this dimension
when new information contradicts
strongly held beliefs.
Second, the public is misinformed
about fire size and intensity. McCool
and Stankey (1986) found this, along
with animal mortality, to be consistently misperceived over their 14year test period. Fully three-quarters
of Zwolinski et al.'s (1983) sample
believed that most forest fires are
"very hot with tall flames," burning
100s or 1,000s of acres; however, 10%
answered that they did not know average fire size or intensity. Only
about 15% agreed with the expert
group that fires ordinarily burn at
moderate intensity and cover a few
acres or less. These two parameters
also could be changed through education in Taylor and Daniel's (1982)
study, both shifting from the uninformed, more-severe assumption toward the expert, less severe position.
--Expert
-·-·- Line Drawings
- -
--FuN Information
- Control Information
......... Orapha
.....,.... ..... ··.
/
_ . -. ...._
I
I
...... "¥.
I
I
' - - - - ""........
Air
Fire
Pollution
lnten111t1
Fire
Ar••
·.·
I
'
... I
Anlmela
KHied
w.e.,
Pollution
Eroaloa
Vea-t.llon
Recoverr Time
Clnv•r••)
Figure 2.-Effects of information on public knowledge of selected fire items (Taylor and
Daniel1982).
114
·'";,,·
~ ;
..
A third area of misperception
common to all four surveys drawn
upon here (McCool and Stankey
1986, Stankey 1976, Taylor and
Daniel 1982, and Zwolinski et al.
1983) is that most forest fires in the
northern and southwestern United
States are started through human
carelessness. In both of these survey
regions, lightning is the principal origin of forest fires. However, fewer
than one-fourth (23%) of the people
surveyed correctly identified this fire
origin (Zwolinski et al. 1983),
whereas more than two-thirds (68%)
identified human carelessness as the
principal origin. This parameter was
not shifted for those respondents
who read fire information brochures
in the Taylor and Daniel study.
Survey results were mixed concerning public knowledge about the
effects of fire on air pollution, water
pollution, and erosion. Nearly half
(45%) of the Zwolinski et al. (1983)
sample agreed with the expert group
that forest fires contribute only aminor portion of air pollution; the same
agreement occurred in the Taylor
and Daniel (1982) study. The Taylor
and Daniel respondents also agreed
Gardner•
with the expert group that severe
fires result in moderate soil erosion;
but the Zwolinski et al. sample
tended to overestimate this effect,
53% believed that major amounts of
soil erosion generally follow.
Contribution of forest fires to water pollution had a wider spread of
beliefs; one-third (33%) agreed with
the experts in Zwolinski et al. that
minor water pollution resulted, but
more than one-fourth (27%) believed
that moderate water pollution resulted, and another one-third were
evenly split between ''No water pollution" and "Major water pollution."
The public seems to be fairly well
informed that periodic light-intensity
fire reduces the danger of subsequent
severe fires. This was one of the
items of important knowledge increase reported by McCool and Stankey (1986), whereas 65% agreed with
the statement in the Zwolinski et al.
(1983) survey. In Taylor and Daniel's
0. 982) survey, effects from information were not found for this item, because more than 90% of those not
provided with fire information
agreed with the statement to begin
with.
Taylor and Daniel a
No Information
Fire Information
Zwolinstd
§~74.1%
~~
Public knowledge of the effects of
fire on forest ecosystems was mixed.
McCool and Stankey (1986) reported
that people's knowledge had increased concerning fires opening up
meadows and grassy areas and that
fire suppression could change the
composition of plant species and reduce certain habitat. However, understanding that fire and fire suppression could effect changes in the
ecosystem in general changed little
over the years, and the effects of suppression on elk habitat remained one
of the areas of lowest knowledge.
Taylor and Daniel (1982) and
Zwolinski et al. (1983) asked their
respondents whether an underbrush
and debris fire would allow other
tree species to replace pines or would
tend to keep the area as a pine forest.
More than one-third (35%) of
Zwolinski et al.'s respondents answered "keep it pine," but 27% answered "replace pines," and 38%
didn't know. This is one clear area of
response to the information brochures in Taylor and Daniel's survey:
slightly more than half of the uninformed group correctly identified
"keep it pine," but 90% of each of the
fire information treatment groups
responded correctly. This is an aspect of fire that the public does not
completely understand but has an
interest in learning more.
Public Acceptance of Fire
Management Practices
~
~
~77.1% ~67.7%
!E61.7"1ft
~ .:::: 13.7%
~
23.7%
~·
...... 81.3%
16.7%
::.<;,
r·
....
. 7.3%
2 1Somt totals do not equal 100% due to non-reeponM.
!"Don't Know" wa1 not offered as an option in lht
Taylor Gftd Donltl queationart.
9t.7"1ft~67.1%
,.:..... 1!5.0'%
7.9%
mD ogree {•should)
l:,:::i:,,;~:,,;J disa9r.. ft'should not)
-
don't know
Figure 3.-Public support for complete suppression, allowing human-orlgininated or lightning fires to bum, and tor managers burning out underbrush and debris.
115
From Stankey (1976) and McCool
and Stankey (1986), we know that the
attitude of wilderness users toward
fire management policies varies according to their level of knowledge
about fire. These researchers demonstrated a significant increase by the
public, over time, in tolerance of fire
in wilderness. Most visitors (56%) to
the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in
Idaho in the initial survey in 1971 favored fire suppression. Most in the
follow-up survey in 1984 (73%) favored the use of fire as a wilderness
management tool. This is a marked
departure from the position reported
by Hall (1972) that the strongly
dominant attitude of North Americans was that fires were categorically
bad.
Analysis of survey results from
Gardner et al. (1985), Taylor and
Daniel (1982), and Zwolinski et al.
(1983) showed that the public is not
only accepting of the use of prescribed fire, but is discriminating
among different kinds of fire. When
asked if all fires in the forest should
be vigorously suppressed, two-thirds
(67.3%) of these sample audiences,
overall, disagreed (fig. 3). However,
78.5% believed that fires started
through human carelessness should
be suppressed, and 61.5% believed
that fires started by lightning should
be put out. Conversely,82.2%, overall, believed that forest managers
should periodically burn out underbrush and debris.
This suggests a degree of sophistication in public response to forest
fire previously unknown to forest
managers. Earlier studies (Hall 1972,
Hendee et al. 1968) supported the
idea that the general public viewed
all forest fires as bad and supported
vigorous suppression policies. But
fire management is changing and so
is public acceptance of fire policies.
Carpenter et al.'s analysis (1986) of
the "fire acceptance" data from the
three surveys cited above demonstrated that the attitudes of the public shift toward ever-greater acceptance of fire in a forest environment
as the nature of that fire is more completely explained and the degree of
oversight is increased (table 1).
Carpenter et al. (1986) also conducted a log-linear analysis of data
from these three surveys data to determine what sociodemographic or
fire-knowledge factors might be significant in explaining differences in
attitudes toward these different fire
management situations. Four knowledge or belief factors emerged as significant in explaining attitudes toward fire management (table 2):
116
knowledge of beneficial effects of
fire, of the most-common fire origin,
of the size of most fires, and of animal mortality resulting from most
fires.
lhe Relative Importance of Smoke
The second area of concern regarding the direct effects of fire on
recreation is the influence of smoke
generated by fires. However, this
seems to be a somewhat elusive parameter in terms of public response
and the effects on recreation re-
sources. In the telephone survey of
Tucson residents cited earlier
(Zwolinski et al. 1983), respondents
were asked the question, If you
were to see or know that there was a
forest fire, how concerned would
you personally be about each of the
following?" (on a 1-to-10 scale where
1 is not at all concerned and 10 is extremely concerned). Figure 4 displays
the responses to this question. Three
distinct groupings of "extreme concern" to the public were noted.
Losses of trees, wildlife, and food for
wildlife all were rated "10" by more
than half of the 1,200 respondents.
11
60-----------------------------------------r
Treea Lost
Wild Animal Death
Animal Food Lost
.! 40
Recreation Area Loat
Runoff/Eroalon
c
CD
~
&
loO
Livestock Food Loat
Q)
-a:....
0
c
CD
e
G)
Q.
20
Air Pollution. Smoke
0
No Concern
10
Extreme Concern
Level of Concern
Figure 4.-Publlc concem for fire effects (Zwolinski et al. 1983).
117
Loss of recreation area, runoff and
erosion, and loss of livestock food
were of extreme concern to 30-40% of
these Tucson residents. Fewer than
20%, however, consider smoke pollution from forest fire to be of extreme
concern; fewer than 10% rated this
item as 8 or 9 on the 1-to-10 scale.
In summer 1988, Habeck (1988)
conducted a preliminary test of a
public response survey concerning
smoke from prescribed burning in
the Bitterroot Valley of Montana. Although these results were preliminary and the sample quite small, it
was proportionally drawn from four
different communities in the valley
and the results tabulated. Seventyone percent reported that they did
not perceive an air pollution problem
from smoke, and 68% believed that
prescribed burning was only a "minor" or uno factor" in valley air pollution. Sixty-four of the 69 respondents (92%) were willing to tolerate
minor-to-moderate amounts of
smoke as a result of prescribed burning.
Studies of economic valuation of
air quality in several National Parks
in the Southwest (Blanket al., 1978)
showed that people consider maintaining or improving air quality in
and around National Parks quite important. Local residents and park
visitors were willing to pay $50 to
$85 per household per year to
achieve significant improvements in
air quality. These studies also
showed that people were willing to
pay more for maintaining or improving air quality in pristine areas than
in natural areas where some environmental degradation had already occurred. Crocker (1986) found that
users of the Central Oregon Cascades
Wilderness would be willing to pay
an additional $2.00 per day of use to
assure high visual quality.
These studies suggest that air
quality, in outdoor recreation areas,
is of serious concern to the American
public, but that smoke from prescribed burning is not perceived to
be a major factor in air quality dete-
rioration, at least when the interviewing is not conducted during an
air pollution event related to forest
fire. However, the experience reported by forest managers, and certainly this year (1988) by the news
media, is that someone gets upset
when smoke from a forest fire invades his or her town. With the current state of knowledge, however, we
don't really know which segments of
the public respond negatively to
smoke impacts, other than concessionaires and other businesses reporting economic losses. Public hearings and workshops concerning prescribed burning receive much positive response. The unanswered question is whether these same people
reverse their positions when they are
actually experiencing smoke from a
fire or if these different responses
come from two different segments of
the public. Taylor and Mutch (1986)
suggested a u quick response survey"
project to answer this question, but
the suggestion has not yet been supported. Yellowstone National Park is
starting a survey for 1989 concerning
public response to the smoke and fire
impacts of the 1988 fires. This project
may be able to reveal who, among
the public, are truly concerned about
forest fire smoke.
Long-Term Effects of Fire
Research on the long-term effects
of fire on scenic quality and on the
acceptability of burn areas for recreational use is fairly recent. In their
study plan for #Evaluation of public
response to use of prescribed fire in
recreational land management,"
Cortner et al. (1979) stated uLittle
previous research has systematically
investigated public knowledge and
attitudes toward fire management (in
a recreational context)." Perkins
(1971) reported on the effects of prescribed burning on outdoor recreation to a prescribed burning symposium in the southeastern United
States. Anderson et al. (1982) found
that a rapid scenic quality recovery
may well follow prescribed light fire
in a southwestern ponderosa pine
forest. Taylor and Daniel (1982) conducted the first experiment that directly compared the residual effects
of light, prescribed fire with those of
severe, wild fire. This was done in
the southwestern ponderosa pine forest type and included evaluation of
the effects of fire on the acceptability
of these areas for recreational use, as
well as for scenic quality.
Historically, the relation between
fire and recreation has been assumed
to parallel some other interaction
dimension, generally the relation between fire and scenic quality. Rudolf
(1967) specifically equated proper
management for recreation with
proper management for visual quality in discussing silviculture for recreation area management. Perkins
(1971) assumed that the effects of
prescribed fire on outdoor recreation
would parallel the effects on plant
and animal species composition. He
argued that because most recreation
activities are dependent upon the
presence of specific species (for hunting, fishing, bird-watching) or upon
species diversity (for nature study,
photography), forestry practices that
enhance appropriate species composition must, by definition, enhance
recreation. By this rationale hunting,
camping, picnicking, hiking, birdwatching, and outdoor photography
were all assumed to benefit from prescribed burning. Wagar (1974) dealt
specifically with aesthetic amenity
values and effects in discussing recreational and visual quality considerations of forest residues management. The visual aesthetic dimensions that Wagar considered included naturalness, imageability,
legibility, texture, harmony, scale,
and order. Only through the dimension of upassability, the openness to
-human passage," was an outdoor
recreation dimension given direct
consideration.
It is generally assumed that there
is a relation between forest manage118
ment practices and aesthetic quality
and between scenic quality and recreation. A properly managed forest is
a thing of beauty to a silviculturalist,
but this may not necessarily be true
for the general public. It has taken
many years for the wildlife biology
community to convince foresters that
optimum sil vicul tural management
-110 '---L-~.-~.___.4_..J.__J
YEAAI AFTER Filii
'Control level represents rating of are11 having had no lim In 100 yeara.
Figure 5.-Scenlc beauty estimations of
forest areas following fire (Taylor and Daniel
1982).
Figure 6.-Recreation acceptability estimations of forest areas following fire (aggregated data) (Taylor and Danlel1982).
does not necessarily provide optimum wildlife habitat. It may take an
equally long time to demonstrate
what the real relations are between
fire management and scenic quality;
between the effects of fire on aesthetics and recreational acceptability.
One dimension of the Taylor and
Daniel (1982) study was a direct
comparison between the effects of
fire on scenic beauty estimations and
on recreational acceptability estimations. To test these effects, ponderosa
pine forests in Arizona were photographed. Areas selected and photographed showed 1 to 5 years of vegetative recovery from two intensities
of fire: light intensity, prescribed fire,
and severe wildfire. A control ponderosa pine forest area was used that
had had no fire in the past 100 years.
Respondents, selected from public
and church groups in Tucson, were
asked to independently rate two sets
of scenes, depicted in 35-mm slides:
one set for recreational acceptability
and one for scenic quality. Both
40
-ca.,...
----·lonlclllftt
.......... _ ltHr
-·-·-Hiklnv/
..........
Ill
=
Figure 7.-Recreation acceptability estimations of forest areas following fire (by recreaHon acHvity) (Taylor and Daniel 1982).
evaluations were patterned after the
Scenic Beauty Estimation [SBE)
methodology established by Daniel
and Boster (1976). For the recreational acceptability estimation [RAE),
each participant selected the outdoor
recreation activity most preferred for
the kind of forest areas shown, then
rated each scene for "how good that
area would be for that recreation activity."
In general, the respondents' estimations of the scenic quality and recreational acceptability of the forest
burn areas shown responded quite
strongly to the effects of different fire
intensities. Perceived scenic beauty
(fig. 5) for light fire was improved,
especially by the second year after
the fire, as compared to the scenic
beauty estimation for the control. Severe fire seriously eroded scenic
beauty, with a general worsening
trend over at least the 5-year test period following the fire. It may be that
this worsening condition is a result
of weeds and shrub growth as early
post-fire recovery stages.
Recreational acceptability (fig. 6)
also showed a differential response
to light and severe fire intensities. In
this case, however, light fire effected
little change from the control, no-fire
forest. Recreation acceptability response to severe fire dropped immediately and stayed there, rather than
showing a decreasing trend. A comparison of Figures 5 and 6 shows that
recreational acceptability estimations
do not directly parallel the scenic
beauty estimations. The curves are
different-especially the response to
light fire effects in comparison to the
control, no-fire condition-and the
spread between light fire and severe
fire response is greater for scenic
beauty than for recreational acceptability. From this it should be apparent that for the general public, evaluating the effects of light and severe
fire in the southwestern United
States, scenic beauty is not the same
thing as acceptability for recreation.
Indeed, in this context, scenic quality
cannot even be used as a reasonable
119
surrogate for recreational acceptability; one could not accurately decide,
despite the intuitive logic, that an
area that has been aesthetically improved through the use of prescribed
burning is necessarily improved for
recreational use.
This discussion is based on comparison of scenic beauty with the aggregated recreational acceptability
estimations. What of the response to
fire by separate recreational activity
groups? Do hikers and campers differ in their estimations of recreational
acceptability of forest burn areas?
Figure 7 shows the recreational acceptability results from the Taylor
and Daniel (1984) study by recreation
activity. These data should be accepted with some caution: respondents in this survey self-selected
their favorite recreation activity to
evaluate vis-a-vis fire. The
subsamples, therefore, could not be
stated to differ from each other only
on the dimension of recreational
choice selected. Nevertheless, the
pattern of response by recreation activity is sufficiently clear to warrant
at least preliminary conclusions.
Of the four recreational activities
selected by respondents in Taylor
and Daniel's (1982) test, camping
was most sensitive to fire effects. The
negative effects of severe wildfire on
camping are about twice the magnitude of the negative effects on scenic
beauty. Camping even showed some
negative response to light, prescribed
burning effects. Next most sensitive
to fire effects was picnicking, which
showed a severe negative response
to wildfire effects but very little response to light fire. Hiking/Backpacking showed about the same degree of negative reaction to severe
wildfire as the scenic beauty estimations, but again little positive or
negative impact from light fire. Nature study was least affected by severe fire and may have had a slightly
positive response to light fire, although certainly not significant. Anecdotal evidence, volunteered by respondents in this survey, gives some
explanation of the seemingly anomalous response by those selecting nature study. "It may look awful," one
woman said, "but it would be an excellent place to study wildlife."
These recreational acceptability
responses demonstrate not only that
recreational acceptability is a different phenomenon than scenic beauty,
but that acceptability of forest bum
areas for recreational use varies significantly according to the severity of
the fire and from one outdoor recreation activity to another. Thus, decisions as to whether to prescribe bum
or let a naturally ignited fire burn in
a specific forest area will have to depend not only on whether there is
outdoor recreation use of the area,
but on what types of outdoor recreation occur. These results are preliminary; further research is required to
statistically verify just how responses
to fire effects vary from one form of
outdoor recreation to another.
Implications for Management
Implications for these various
findings, for both fire management
and recreation management in southwestern forests, are set here in the
context of information and education
programs. In a forthcoming chapter
on public attitudes and perceptions
about prescribed burning in the Pacific Northwest, Shelby and Speaker
(in draft) identified the following
"key elements" for a successful Information and Education program
about fire management:
1. A long-term effort to inform
the public about the natural
role of fire in undisturbed
ecosystems;
2. A strong consensus among
forest managers and concerned user groups about the
correct use and beneficial effects of prescribed fire;
3. Public perception that the
information is scientifically
sound and not stemming
from an interest group with a
biased position; and
4. Adequate treatment of specific public concerns related
to the use of fire, including
the risks of prescription fires
getting out of control, smoke
intrusion in to populated areas and related effects on
public health, potential
health hazards of burning
chemically treated sites, and
aesthetic impacts.
Two very important axioms to
consider for public information programs are that (1) information exchange is only effective as a two-way
process and (2) educating the public
will not necessarily cause them to
believe as you do. Unfortunately,
there is a strong tendency, across a
wide spectrum of resource professionals, to commit the two cardinal
errors that oppose these axioms. "We
have come a long way in our understanding of fire ecology. The public,
ignorant of these advances, finds our
policy changes very hard to accept. If
we educate the public about what
we've learned, we will gamer the
public support needed for our new
fire management programs." Note
that this approach does not assess
public knowledge, but assumes ignorance on the part of the public. Second, it assumes that the public will
come around to our way of thinking
if they are educated to our relatively
new-found knowledge. We should
intuitively recognize the danger and
lack of foundation of the second fallacy-that once educated, people will
believe as we do. Certainly, some of
the most effective opposition toresource management practices have
come from the most knowledgeable
segments of the public-from the forest products industry on one hand
-and from environmental action organizations on the other.
Information and education programs can be thought of as cyclical
processes. First, inform ourselves
120
about the public, then set about the
public education that is appropriate.
In summary, what is known about
public beliefs and attitudes concerning fire? Growing acceptance and
sophistication characterize public attitudes toward current fire management practices. Prescribed burning is
generally well accepted; fires started
by human carelessness or by lightning are not. As the nature and degree of control of a fire are better
understood by the public, there is a
tendency to be more accepting of
managers' decisions. However, one
area of misinformation, mentally associated with the rather strong public
rejection of allowing lightningcaused fires to bum, should be of
concern to the fire manager. This is
the usual origin of forest fires in the
interior West. The implications for
prescription burns with unplanned
ignitions are important. Only YOU
can start forest fires, Smokey not
withstanding.
The average public ability to correctly respond to fire questions is increasing. Knowledge has increased
significantly for questions regarding
the relation of fire to nutrient availability, the control of insects and disease, and the relation of fire suppression to changes in community structure and to the intensity of future
wildfires. However, knowledge remains low about the average size of
forest fires before suppression activities began, the number of animals
killed in forest fires, the lightningorigin of most fires in western regions, and the effects of suppression
on wildfire intensity and animal habitat. Knowledge about fire suppression's relation to future fire intensity
remained relatively low in McCool
and Stankey's (1986) survey, although it increased from 1971 levels.
The relation between knowledge
levels and factors that explain acceptance of fire management practices,
as shown in table 2, should be considered. Understanding some of the
beneficial effects fire can have on forest ecosystems is important in ac-
cepting various types of fire. This
connection is intuitively logical.
Knowing that lightning is the usual
cause of forest fires in many western
forest types also is significant in
people's acceptance of a variety of
fires, but this knowledge is not very
widespread. Knowing that most fires
in forest ecosystems are small and
that most animals are able to escape
from wildfires are important in acceptance of fires that are not specifically designated as set and controlled
by fire managers. Again, a limited
segment of the public is aware of
these factors.
These results show mixed public
know ledge and beliefs about fire behavior and effects. Some parameters
are understood, some are not known,
and still others are clearly misunderstood. Examining public knowledge
can prevent mistakes such as talking
down to an audience that already
understands the message, going past
issues about which the audience is
confused, or missing areas where the
audience is quite confidently wrong
in their beliefs. A public information
program that is not based on surveying public knowledge could make all
these mistakes simultaneously.
Fire Managers' Decision Behavior
.·.. ··-
If I insist that resource managers
must study their audience before
prescribing education programs,
then it should be incumbent upon me
to have studied resource fire managers before presenting this paper. Indeed, I have participated, over the
past few years, in a survey of USDA
Forest Service, Fire Managers' firerisk decision behavior (Taylor et al.
1987, 1988). This survey was designed to find out what factors
weighed heavily on fire managers as
they faced decisions involving risk.
The survey design was kept as
simple as possible. Fire managers
read scenarios describing a fire-decision situation for each of three contexts: responding to an escaped wild-
fire, deciding on setting a prescribed
burn, and long-range fire-budget
planning. In each case they were required to decide: the level of attack
on the wildfire, whether to set the
prescribed burn, or the level of
budget or risk to accept. Then, the
degrees to which various decision
factors influenced those decisions
were assessed.
Pertinent to the present discussion, resource issues had profound
effects on fire managers' decisions.
Indeed, resource issues ranked
nearly even with safety issues in influencing fire decisions. However,
not all resources are given equal
weight, despite legislation demanding multiple-use management.
Threats to timber received the highest decision influence ratings by fire
managers for both escaped wildfire
and prescribed fire situations and
was ranked fourth for long-range
fire-budget planning. "The chance of
a catastrophic fire is likely to be reduced" was rated highest for longrange planning. The fairly new national policy of balancing the value of
resources at risk with the costs of fire
activities received the second-highest
fire-decision influence rating overall.
The item, "More money could be
spent than is justified by the resource
values" at risk was rated second for
both escaped wildfire and long-range
planning decisions, third for prescribed burning.
Where does recreation fit into this
scheme? The item "recreation opportunities could be lost" was rated
fifth, out of 18 factors, for the escaped wildfire decision context.
However, protection of recreation
resources did not fare so well in prescribed burning or long-range fire
budget planning contexts. Reduction
of recreation opportunities was
ranked 16th, of 19 factors, for prescribed fire decisions and 17th, of 18,
long-range planning decision factors.
Similar to George Orwell's 11Animal
Farm" (1954), some resources are
"more equal than others."
121
A comparison of the priority given
recreation resources by these fire
managers with those of the general
public, as reported by Zwolinski et
al. (1983), suggests that some realignment is necessary. The public sample
rated outdoor recreation third in importance among forest resources in
the Southwest, above lumber, livestock feed, firewood, and hunting.
Concern about the effects of fire on
recreation areas also was rated fairly
high, with nearly 40% of the respondents reporting that they would be
"extremely concerned" that "recreation areas will be destroyed" when
they see evidence of a forest fire. As
the fire risk decision data (Taylor et
al. 1988) indicate, a number of resource managers are retaining resource priorities from past decades,
giving preferential treatment to timber over important emerging public
values for recreational use of forest
resources.
Seldom do resource managers
weigh recreational values higher
than such tangible commodities as
timber production or livestock grazing. Even less heavily are weighed
the subtle differences among different recreational expectations in resource or fire management decisions.
However, mechanisms for incorporating these subtleties, such as the
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
(Driver and Brown 1975) are becoming available for use by the resource
manager.
Evidence is mounting, from the
various national outdoor recreation
surveys that have been conducted
over the past few decades, that demand for outdoor recreation activities is continuing to increase. Oearly,
it is important for the resource fire
manager to align his or her priori ties
to match those of the constituent
public. Recreation is of prime concern to the American public and
must be given high priority weighting by natural resource managers in
making decisions about fire.