This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Social/Political Obstacles
and Opportunities in
Prescribed Fire
Management 1
Terry C. Daniel2
Controlled burns, let burns, or
prescribed fire in one form or another has become an increasingly
important tool in the public land
manager's kit. As an agent of environmental change fire has many
things to recommend it. However,
there are frequently problems in obtaining public support for the purposeful use of fire in the management of public lands. Objections may
be based on visibility reduction and
smoke pollution in recreation areas
and nearby communities, on the real
or imagined danger of the fire escaping and destroying private homes
and property or on the unsightliness
of scorched vegetation and charred
ground. In short, fire in the woods is
controversial.
The controversy surrounding the
use of prescribed fire can be viewed
in the context of a more general dilemma that confronts public land
managers:
The public demands an increasing array of goods and
services from the National
Forests and other lands, but at
the same time insists upon
protection of natural areas and
natural processes.
1
Panel paper presented at the conference, Effects of Rre in Management of
Southwestern Natural Resources (Tucson.
AZ, November 14-17, 1988).
1
Professor of Psychology and Renewable Natural Resources at the University of
Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721.
These demands need not be completely incompatible, but they do require exceptionally creative and conscientious application of multiple-use
management strategies, improved
understanding of ecological processes and greater use of modern
planning and management technologies. There are several potentially
serfous problems that must be overcome. First, some resource management policies and practices are not
sufficiently sensitive to the value that
the public places on nature. This can
in part be attributed to the slow response time of large agencies to
changing public priorities. However,
some of the problem arises because,
even with the best of intentions, resource managers still have much to
learn about complex natural processes. Second, the public is notalways well informed about the "natural processes" that they desire to
have protected. The public with
which the land manager must deal
has become increasingly urban, with
relatively little direct contact or experience with natural environments or
ecological processes. Finally, given
the extent of previous human disturbances and interventions into natural
ecosystems, including global air pollution, acid precipitation and the
"green house effect," there is some
question about whether there are any
"natural" areas or processes left to be
protected.
It is somewhat ironic that prescribed fire should fall victim to this
134
natural resource management dilemma. Fire is after all a "natural
process." Indeed, fire is an essential
part of many forest ecosystems. Why
then should the public object to prescribed burning in forests where fire
is a natural agent of environmental
change? There are no doubt many
reasons for public concern and resistance, as there are many different
concerned publics. This paper will
review three general "obstacles" to
public acceptance of prescribed fire:
(1) public misunderstanding of the
role of fire in forest ecosystems, (2)
the real and perceived risks of prescribed fires and (3) the adverse effects of fire on aesthetic and recreation values.
Obstacles
Understanding Fire Ecology
As noted above, in spite of the
high value generally ascribed to nature, the public frequently does not
adequately understand ecological
processes. In particular, the time and
geographic scale of natural processes
seems to be difficult to comprehend.
Professional land managers have
generally been educated to appreciate the natural scales of time and
space. Their view of the land is often
based on surveys and remote sensed
data covering hundreds of thousands
of acres. Through formal models and
less formal experience, managers
routinely project and plan for
changes in the land that may not occur for decades. In contrast, it is often difficult for the less experienced
public to appreciate environmental
rewards that are even a few years in
the future, much less those not expected for a century or more. Similarly, from the public perspective 100
or 1000 acres of forest damaged by
fire can appear to be a catastropheespecially if those few acres happen
to be around a favorite recreation site
or in the view from the front porch of
the cabin or condo.
A corollary to the public's misunderstanding of natural processes is
that the natural role of fire in forest
ecosystems is poorly understood.
Several studies (e.g., Cortner et al.
1984; McCool and Stankey 1986; Taylor and Daniel 1984; Taylor et al.
1986; Zwolinski et al. 1983) have
shown that the public tends to think
of forest fires as being much larger
and more destructive, especially to
wildlife, than normal (natural) fires
tend to be. Further, the public attributes a much greater percentage of
forest fires to human carelessness or
arson than is actually the case.
While there are trends toward
greater public sophistication in recent years, there is still considerable
confusion, including misunderstandings about the distinctions between
prescribed or controlled fires and
wildfires.
Part of the public's misconceptions
about the role of fire is undoubtedly
due to a lack of appropriate environmental education; only recently have
a handful of school systems begun to
include regular units on ecology and
environment in their curriculum. On
the other hand, substantial blame for
public misunderstanding in this regard must be attributed to highly
successful"Smokey-the-Bear" type
campaigns. Fire has for the most part
been portrayed to the public as an
undesirable destructive agent in the
forest. The often repeated and very
effective theme, "only you can prevent forest fires" has perhaps been
taken too much to heart by the public-it may well be applied now to
prescribed fires, as well. In any
event, it is little wonder that the public has some confusion and mixed
emotions about the role of fire in the
forest.
Another possible basis for public
confusion regarding the resource
managers use of prescribed fire may
be related to the perceived purpose
of the fire. In selling the new philosophy regarding the role of fire in the
forest, the historic natural role of fire
and its ecological benefits are often
cited. Frequently, however, prescribed fires are actually justified by
the need to remove "slash" associated with logging or pre-commercial
thinning, and for "site preparation,"
all in the context of commercial timber sales. These justifications may
seem appropriate and reasonable to
the trained forester (indeed, they
may even be required by budgeting
policies), but often these purposes
are viewed by the public as incompatible with their desire to protect
natural areas and natural processes.
At the very least, the fact that fire has
found economic use in the context of
commercial timber sales raises suspicions in some quarters of the public
regarding the claimed ecological
benefits of fire.
Fire Risks. Real and Perceived
A second obstacle to greater public acceptance of prescribed fire policies is the perceived (and occasionally real) risk that controlled fires
will become destructive uncontrolled
fires. This is a calculated risk in all
prescribed fire situations. The 1988
fires in Yellowstone National Park
provided a dramatic illustration of
public reaction to prescribed fires
that get out of control. A complicating factor at Yellowstone, and in
many other forest areas in the West,
is that decades of aggressive fire suppression policies have created a very
"unnatural" forest. The loss of a
135
natural mix of species and age
classes, some experts believe, is one
of the primary causes of serious "forest health" problems that seem to be
occurring with increased frequency
and severity (USDA Forest Service
1988). In addition, the tendency toward extensive even-aged, over
crowded and over aged forests has
increased susceptibility to the ravages of insects and diseases, which in
turn can set the stage for wildfires of
unprecedented intensities and scale.
In areas where long periods of fire
suppression have allowed the accumulation of large volumes of fuels,
and fostered changes in species composition so as to produce more vertically distributed "ladder" fuels, the
re-introduction of fire as a "natural"
environmental change agent is at
least problematic.
The risk of an escaped fire is further exacerbated by the increasing
"infiltration" of forest areas by human developments; the wildland/
urban interface is large and expanding. All indications are that the number of developments extending into
essentially wild forest areas will continue to increase. A "natural," undisturbed forest setting is increasingly
desired as a site for homes and other
developments. Further, "management" of the forest tends to be
viewed as in direct conflict with the
desire to be near nature and to live in
a pristine environment. Thus, there is
the opportunity for significant conflict between residents' style of life
and aesthetic goals and the forest
manager's desire to protect developments from potentially catastrophic
wildfires.
Of course, many of these subtleties
are soon forgotten when a catastrophic fire actually occurs-human
safety and the protection of property,
and the manager's responsibility for
same, then become the overriding
concerns. It is not surprising that forest managers are very cautious about
using fire in any situation where human developments or high use areas
might be threatened.
Aesthetic and Recreational Effects
Another important obstacle to
public acceptance of prescribed fire is
the fact that at least the immediate
effects of burning are ugly. Large
amounts of smoke, whether in the
woods where you recreate or in the
town where you live, is unpleasant.
There are few communities where
additional visible particulates in the
air are welcomed. Resort and tourism-focussed communities may be
particularly sensitive to visible air
pollution. Studies have shown that
visitors' appreciation of scenic vistas
in parks and wilderness areas is adversely affected by reduced atmospheric visibility (e.g., Latimer, et al.
1981; Maim et al. 1981). Such visibility reductions are, of course, a common consequence of prescribed fires.
While the effects of smoke are generally of short duration, they are significant in that they can be extensive
and affect large numbers of people;
smoke is very conspicuous. Further,
given increasingly stringent air pollution and visibility degradation regulations, creating smoke may soon be
illegal altogether.
The scorch and charring that is
produced by the best controlled burn
can also have ad verse effects on the
perceived scenic beauty of forest areas, at least in the short-term. Anderson et al. (1982) studied the changes
over time in perceived scenic beauty
of a controlled burn in a southwestern ponderosa pine site. Immediately
after the burn scenic beauty was substantially reduced relative to pre-fire
levels. Over the next 3 to 5 years,
however, the perceived scenic beauty
of the site improved to recover and
then surpass the pre-fire value. By
the seventh year after the burn scenic
beauty values were beginning to decline back to the pre-fire level.
Clearly the immediate loss in scenic
beauty was associated with the
scorch and charring of the trees and
ground cover. As the charring became less evident, the scenic values
recovered. Because the burn was sue-
cessful in removing significant
amounts of downed wood (a negative aesthetic feature) and also stimulated new and vibrant ground cover
(a positive feature, see Daniel and
Boster 1976 and Brown and Daniel
1986), scenic values actually exceeded the pre-fire level after a few
years. Finally, as the ground covers
matured and new downed wood began to accumulate, scenic values began to return to the pre-fire levels.
The effects of prescribed fire on aesthetic values are not simple, and they
seem to depend upon when the
burned area is encountered.
Taylor and Daniel (1984) studied
both the perceived scenic beauty and
recreational quality of ponderosa
pine forest areas that had been subjected to different intensities of fire at
different times from 1 to 5 years in
the past.. Half of the sites studied had
experienced what was classified as
"severe" fire, characterized by high
intensity fires with substantial tree
mortality, as might occur in a wildfire. The other half of the sites had
experienced "light" fire, characterized by low intensity burns with little
or no tree mortality, as might occur
in a controlled or prescribed fire.
All of the sites subjected to severe
fire showed very substantial losses in
public judgments of both scenic and
recreational values, with no indication of recovery over the 5-year period covered by the study. As the
Anderson et al. study found, perceived scenic beauty values for the
sites representing light fire all improved relative to the unburned control site for the first 3 years (with the
first assessment occurring after 1
year). Sites burned 4 and 5 years before the assessment remained at the
3-year level or declined back toward
the level for the unburned site. Relative to the scenic beauty results, light
fire generally had less effect on
. judged quality of the sites for recreation uses. Judgments of the quality of
the sites specifically for camping,
however, showed somewhat greater
sensitivity to light fire effects over a
136
longer recovery time than scenic
beauty judgments. At the other extreme, judged quality of the burned
sites for nature study was relatively
insensitive to fire effects. Taylor's
paper in this volume presents a more
complete description of this study.
Opportunities
Prescribed fires are now widely
recognized by professional land
managers as potentially very beneficial for forest management and protection. Prescribed fires can have
very beneficial effects for wildlife
and for maintaining the natural diversity and vigor of the forest. Many
of the negative effects of what is now
seen as over-aggressive fire suppression policies might be corrected by
the careful re-introduction of fire. For
example, prescribed fire may be the
only economical means for restoring
a natural mosaic of species and ageclasses over the great expanses of the
Rocky Mountain forests. Prescribed
fires, while themselves sometimes
viewed as dangerous, can in fact be
very effective for removing excess
fuels and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires. The results of the
Anderson et al. (1982) and Taylor
and Daniel (1984) studies suggest
that an appropriate prescribed fire
regime could help to sustain, and
even improve scenic and recreational
values in some forests. Thus, there
are substantial incentives for forest
managers to find ways to make prescribed fire more acceptable to the
public.
If one obstacle to public acceptance of prescribed fire is the lack of
adequate understanding of the role
of fire in forest ecosystems, it would
follow that some form of environmental education would be useful.
There is, in fact, some evidence that
educational programs or interpretation instruments can be effective in
changing public knowledge, and to a
lesser extent attitudes toward fire in
the forest. For example, Taylor and
Daniel (1984) found that brochures
conveying information about fire
characteristics and the environmental
effects (including ecological benefits)
of fires in ponderosa pine forests
were effective in changing responses
to fire knowledge questions. In that
same study, informative-brochures
were also effective in changing expressed attitudes toward fire; respondents who had read the brochures were more tolerant of low intensity fires and more accepting of
the use of fire in forest management.
At the same time, however, it is important to note that these same respondents did not change their
evaluations of either the scenic
beauty or the attractiveness for recreational uses (e.g., camping) of fireaffected forest areas. In effect, the
message from those who participated
in the education/interpretation program was
I understand the potential environmental benefits of fire
and I am willing to accept
some use of fire as a tool for
managing forests, but recently
burned areas are still ugly and
I do not wish to camp there.
In the context of environmental
education efforts, a very palatable
rationale for prescribed fire could be
developed by emphasizing wildlife
habitat improvement and the long
term protection of valued scenic, recreational or cultural resources. Prescribed fire policies might even be
justified by the need to reintroduce
fire as a natural agent in some ecosystems, such as parks and wilderness areas. Of course, difficulties
may arise due to the apparent conflicts with the messages so well established by previous "Smokey the
Bear'' campaigns. The earlier fire prevention campaigns were very successful, in part because they were
very simple-forest fires are bad and
should be prevented-and very dramatic-burned and smoldering forests look terrible and the thought of
little animals being burned up alive
is very disturbing. In contrast, the
environmental education effort
needed now is much more complex-some forest fires, under appropriate conditions, can, in time, be
beneficial for some types of forests.
Instead of the dramatics of the conflagration and smoking charred aftermath, the ecological benefits of fire
are much more subtle and require an
appreciation of the time scale and
dynamics of the forest ecosystem. At
the same time, the potential benefits
of forest fires must not be over sold.
It would be unwise to have the public forget Smokey the Bear's message
altogether; the object is certainly not
to have people become more careless
with fire in the woods.
While the case can be made that
fire is a natural and beneficial part of
many forest ecosystems, the purposeful use of fire by public land
ma!lagers is still problematic. Previous fire management policies have
frequently created conditions that
virtually preclude an immediate return to "natural" (unmanaged) fire
regimes. The continued expansion of
the "wildland/ urban interface," adds
to the difficulties by exposing more
people and property to risk should a
controlled fire get out of hand. As a
result, managers can be expected to
be increasingly reluctant to use prescribed fire as a tool near these areas.
Ironically, this reluctance to risk prescribed fires in these sensitive areas
can only lead to increased fuels, and
thus increase the risk of a really catastrophic wildfire at some point in the
future. This is a typical "pay now or
pay later" situation. Some public
land managers may choose the
i'later" option in hopes that later will
occur on someone else's watch. Responsible management, however, requires an attempt to communicate
the relative short and long term risks,
and to meaningfully engage the po. tentially affected publics in the decision making process.
Like fire risks, aesthetic and recreational effects of prescribed fire
depend upon the time at which they
137
are assessed. The general indication
(for southwestern ponderosa pine
forests, at least) is that while both
scenic and recreational values may
be negatively impacted in the initial
period after a prescribed burn, these
value recover rather quickly and can
even exceed the pre-bum values
within a few years. Coupled with
known ecological benefits and the
historic "natural" role of fire in some
forest ecosystems, these aesthetic and
recreational effects could provide a
strong basis for public support of
prescribed (controlled) fire programs. Smoke, while a relatively
short-term nuisance, will probably
continue to be a deterrent to prescribed fire programs, especially
given the continuing concerns and
regulations regarding air quality and
visibility degradation. Perhaps the
best approach here is to point out
that accumulating fuels in forest environments ultimately will bum. Our
choice is to accept the inevitable
smoke in small manageable installments, or take it in a lump-sum payment at some unpredictable time in
the future.
Conclusions
There continue to be significant
obstacles to more widespread use of
fire as a tool for forest management.
While there has been considerable
improvement in recent years, there is
still substantial misunderstanding in
the public of the role of fire in forest
ecosystems. Risks to human lives and
property, as well as damage to the
forest and the wildlife therein continue to be of concern to the public,
and this concern can become very
potent when a prescribed fire does in
fact get out of control. There is also
concern about the adverse impacts of
fire on forest recreation and scenic
values, either as a result of smoke
"pollution" or of fire effects on the
vegetation. The tension between air
quality regulations and the use of
prescribed fire in forest management
will no doubt increase in the next few
years. Still there are compelling and
sound reasons for expanding the use
of fire in the management of many
forest ecosystems. Uses range from
fuel reduction as an effective means
of decreasing the risk of future catastrophic wildfires to regeneration
and other vegetative change objectives in the interest of timber production or wildlife habitat improvement.
Another important goal for prescribed fire is the re-establishment of
the natural role of fire in forest ecosystems, including the restoration of
a more natural mosaic of species and
age classes, and maintaining vigor
and resilience of the forest (i.e., creating a "healthier'' forest).
Restoring a more natural fire regime to forests is a commendable
and appropriate resource management goal, and it is in many ways
consistent with public desires torestore and protect natural processes in
public forests. Also, evidence has
been increasing that, in at least some
forest types, appropriate use of prescribed/ controlled fire can enhance
scenic and recreational values. More
often, however, the explicit rationale
provided for prescribed fires revolves around timber management
objectives (such as the aforementioned "slash disposal" and "site
preparation") and the need to protect
timber resources. The emphasis on
timber management objectives reflects long-standing and well established policies that may have some
merit. However, whatever arguments one might wish to muster in
support of the importance of timber
management objectives, the fact is
that there will be little public sentiment for making what is perceived
as long-term environmental sacrifices
in the interest of economic timber
management objectives.
The opportunity clearly does exist
to increase public support for the use
of prescribed fire on the basis of the
ecological, scenic and recreational
benefits that could be achieved. It
goes without saying, of course, that if
prescribed fire is going to be justified
on the basis of wildlife, aesthetic, recreational and ecological benefits, it is
essential that the use of fire in fact be
carefully designed to serve those
purposes.
References
Anderson, L.M., D.J. Levi, T.C.
Daniel and J.H. Deitrich. 1982. The
esthetic effects of prescribed burning: A case study. Research Paper
RM-415. Fort Collins, CO: USDA
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 15 p.
Brown, T.C. and T.C. Daniel. 1986.
Predicting scenic beauty of timber
stands. Forest Science 32:471-487.
Cortner, H.J., M.J. Zwolinski, E.H.
Carpenter and J.G. Taylor. 1984.
J?ublic support for fire-management policies. Journal of Forestry
82(6):359-361.
Daniel, T.C. and R.S. Boster. 1976.
Measuring landscape esthetics:
The scenic beauty estimation
method. Research Paper RM-167.
Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station.
66 p.
Latimer, D. A., H. Hogo and T.C.
Daniel. 1981. The effects of atmospheric optical conditions on perceived scenic beauty. Atmospheric
Environment 15(10/11):1865-1874.
Maim, W., K. Kelly, J. Molenar and
T.C. Daniel. 1981. Human perception of visual air quality: Uniform
haze. Atmospheric Environment
15(10/11):1874-1890.
McCool, S.F. and G.H. Stankey. 1986.
Visitor attitudes toward wilderness fire management policy1971-1984. Research Paper INT357, Ogden, UT: USDA Forest
Service, Intermountain Research
Station. 7 p.
Taylor, J.G., H.J. Cortner, P.D. Gardner, T.C. Daniel, M.J. Zwolinski
and E.H. Carpenter. 1986. Recreation· and fire management: Public
138
concerns, attitudes and perceptions. Leisure Sciences 8(2):167187.
Taylor,J.G. and T.C. Daniel. 1984.
Prescribed fire: Public education
and perception. Journal of Forestry 82(6):361-365.
USDA Forest Service. 1988. Forest
health through silviculture and
integrated pest management: A
strategic plan. Washington, DC:
Forest Pest Management. 26 p.
Zwolinski, M.J., H.J. Cortner, E.H.
Carpenter and J.G. Taylor. 1983.
Public support for fire management policies in recreation land
management. Final Report to the
Eisenhower Consortium, Fort
Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 160 p.