Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 61, Issue 6, pp 1002–1018 | Cite as

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

  • Lauren Nicole Dupéy
  • Jordan W. Smith
Article

Abstract

Social science research from a variety of disciplines has generated a collective understanding of how individuals prepare for, and respond to, the risks associated with prescribed burning and wildfire. We provide a systematic compilation, review, and quantification of dominant trends in this literature by collecting all empirical research conducted within the U.S. that has addressed perceptions and behaviors surrounding various aspects of prescribed burning and wildfire. We reviewed and quantified this literature using four thematic categories covering: (1) the theory and methods that have been used in previous research; (2) the psychosocial aspects of prescribed burning and wildfire that have been studied; (3) the biophysical characteristics of the fires which have been studied; and (4) the types of fire and management approaches that have been examined. Our integrative review builds on previous literature reviews on the subject by offering new insight on the dominant trends, underutilized approaches, and under-studied topics within each thematic category. For example, we found that a select set of theories (e.g., Protection Motivation Theory, Attribution Theory, etc.) and approaches (e.g., mixed-methods) have only been used sparingly in previous research, even though these theories and approaches can produce insightful results that can readily be implemented by fire-management professionals and decision makers. By identifying trends and gaps in the literature across the thematic categories, we were able to answer four questions that address how future research can make the greatest contribution to our understanding of perceptions and behaviors related to prescribed burning and wildfire.

Keywords

Risk perceptions Mitigation behaviors Collaborative management Social theory Mixed-methods Integrative review 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

267_2018_1031_MOESM1_ESM.docx (43 kb)
Supplementary Material

References

  1. Absher JD, Vaske JJ (2007) Modelling puFire in eastern oak forests: Deliveringildland fire policy. In: Reynolds KM, Thomson AJ, Köhl M, Shannon MA, Ray D, Rennolls K (eds) Sustainable forestry: From monitoring and modeling to knowledge management and policy science. CABI, Oxfordshire, pp 159–170Google Scholar
  2. Anton CE, Lawrence C (2016) Does place attachment predict wildfire mitigation and preparedness? A comparison of wildland-urban interface and rural communities. Environ Manag 57(1):148–162Google Scholar
  3. Arvai J, Gregory R, Ohlson D, Blackwell B, Gray R (2006) Letdowns, wake-up calls, and constructed preferences: people’s responses to fuel and wildfire risks. J For 104(4):173–181Google Scholar
  4. Asah ST (2014) Professionals’ perspectives: exploring the occupational and organizational psychology of community-agency interactions in forest fire management Forestry 87(4):552–561.  https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpu013 Google Scholar
  5. Ascher TJ, Wilson RS, Toman E (2013) The importance of affect, perceived risk and perceived benefit in understanding support for fuels management among wildland-urban interface residents Int J Wildland Fire 22(3):267–276.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF12026 Google Scholar
  6. Bates BR, Quick BL, Kloss AA (2009) Antecedents of intention to help mitigate wildfire: implications for campaigns promoting wildfire mitigation to the general public in the wildland-urban interface Saf Sci 47(3):374–381.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2008.06.002 Google Scholar
  7. Bawa RS (2016) Effects of wildfire on the value of recreation in Western North America J Sustain For 36(1):1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2016.1233503 Google Scholar
  8. Bihari M, Ryan R (2012) Influence of social capital on community preparedness for wildfires Landsc Urban Plan 106(3):253–261.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.03.011 Google Scholar
  9. Blanchard B, Ryan RL (2007) Managing the wildland-urban interface in the Northeast: perceptions of fire risk and hazard reduction strategies. North J Appl For 24(3):203–208Google Scholar
  10. Bowker JM, Lim SH, Cordell HK, Green GT, Rideout-Hanzak S, Johnson CY (2008) Wildland fire, risk, and recovery: results of a national survey with regional and racial perspectives. J For 106(5):268–276Google Scholar
  11. Brenkert-Smith H, Champ PA, Flores N (2012) Trying not to get burned: understanding homeowners’ wildfire risk-mitigation behaviors Environ Manag 50(6):1139–1151.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9949-8 Google Scholar
  12. Brenkert–Smith H, Champ PA, Flores N (2006) Insights into wildfire mitigation decisions among wildland–urban interface residents Soc Nat Resour 19(8):759–768.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920600801207 Google Scholar
  13. Brenkert–Smith H, Dickinson KL, Champ PA, Flores N (2013) Social amplification of wildfire risks: the role of social interactions and information sources Risk Anal 33(5):800–817.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01917.x Google Scholar
  14. Bright AD, Newman P (2006) How forest context influences the acceptability of prescribed burning and mechanical thinning. The public and wildland fire management: Social science findings for managers. In: McCaffrey S (ed) The public and wildland fire management: Social science findings for managers. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Newtown Square, PA, pp 47–52Google Scholar
  15. Bright AD, Newman P, Carroll J (2007) Context, beliefs, and attitudes toward wildland fire management: an examination of residents of the wildland-urban interface. Human Ecol Rev 14(2):212–222Google Scholar
  16. Brunson MW, Evans J (2005) Badly burned? Effects of an escaped prescribed burn on social acceptability of wildland fuels treatments. J For 103(3):134–138Google Scholar
  17. Brunson MW, Shindler BA (2004) Geographic variation in social acceptability of wildland fuels management in the Western United States Soc Nat Resour 17(December):661–678.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920490480688 Google Scholar
  18. Burns M, Cheng AS (2007) Framing the need for active management for wildfire mitigation and forest restoration Soc Nat Resour 20(May 2005):245–259.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920601117348 Google Scholar
  19. Burtz RT, Bright AD (2007) Integrative complexity and attitudes toward fire management in the wildland urban interface. J Park Recreat Adm 25(4):99–116Google Scholar
  20. Cacciapaglia MA, Yung L, Patterson ME (2012) Place mapping and the role of spatial scale in understanding landowner views of fire and fuels management Soc Nat Resour 25(5):453–467.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.580418 Google Scholar
  21. Calkin DE, Cohen JD, Finney MA, Thompson MP (2014) How risk management can prevent future wildfire disasters in the wildland-urban interface Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(2):746–751.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1315088111 Google Scholar
  22. Carroll MS, Cohn PJ, Blatner KA (2004) Private and tribal forest landowners and fire risk: a two-county case study in Washington State Can J For Res 34(January):2148–2158.  https://doi.org/10.1139/X04-085 Google Scholar
  23. Carroll M, Kumagai Y, Daniels S, Bliss J, Edwards J (2004) Causal reasoning processes of people affected by wildfire: Implications for agency-community interactions and communication strategies. West J Appl For 19:184–194Google Scholar
  24. Carroll M, Paveglio T (2016) Using community archetypes to better understand differential community adaptation to wildfire risk. Philos Trans R Soc B 371(1696):20150344Google Scholar
  25. Champ PA, Brenkert-Smith H (2016) Is seeing believing? Perceptions of wildfire risk over time Risk Anal 36(4):816–830.  https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12465 Google Scholar
  26. Champ PA, Donovan GH, Barth CM (2013) Living in a tinderbox: wildfire risk perceptions and mitigating behaviors. Int J Wildland Fire 22(6):832–840Google Scholar
  27. Collins TW (2008) What influences hazard mitigation? Household decision making about wildfire risks in Arizona’s White Mountains Prof Geogr 60(4):508–526.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00330120802211737 Google Scholar
  28. Cortner HJ, Zwolinski MJ, Carpenter EH, Taylor JG (1984) Public support for fire-management policies. J For June:359–361Google Scholar
  29. Cvetkovich GT, Winter PL (2008) The experience of community residents in a fire-prone ecosystem: a case study on the San Bernardino National Forest. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CAGoogle Scholar
  30. Czaja MR, Bright AD, Cottrell SP (2016) Integrative complexity, beliefs, and attitudes: application to prescribed fire For Policy Econ 62:54–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.07.003 Google Scholar
  31. Czaja M, Cottrell SP (2014) Integrating social science research into wildland fire management Disaster Prev Manag 23(4):381–394.  https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-10-2013-0193 Google Scholar
  32. Dickinson K, Brenkert-Smith H, Champ P, Flores N (2015) Catching fire? Social interactions, beliefs, and wildfire risk mitigation behaviors Soc Nat Resour 28(8):807–824.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1037034 Google Scholar
  33. Fiore SM, Harrison GW, Hughes CE, Rutström EE (2009) Virtual experiments and environmental policy J Environ Econ Manag 57(1):65–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2008.08.002 Google Scholar
  34. Fischer AP (2011) Reducing hazardous fuels on nonindustrial private forests: factors influencing landowner decisions. J For 109(5):260–266Google Scholar
  35. Fischer AP, Charnley S (2012) Risk and cooperation: managing hazardous fuel in mixed ownership landscapes Environ Manag 49(6):1192–1207.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9848-z Google Scholar
  36. Fischer AP et al. (2016) Wildfire risk as a socioecological pathology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14(5):276–284.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1283 Google Scholar
  37. Flannigan MD, Krawchuk MA, de Groot WJ, Wotton BM, Gowman LM (2009) Implications of changing climate for global wildland fire. Int J Wildland Fire 18(5):483–507Google Scholar
  38. Gan J, Jarrett A, Gaither CJ (2015) Landowner response to wildfire risk: adaptation, mitigation or doing nothing J Environ Manag 159:186–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.014 Google Scholar
  39. Gordon JS, Gruver JB, Flint CG, Luloff AE (2013) Perceptions of wildfire and landscape change in the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska Environ Manag 52(4):807–820.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0127-4 Google Scholar
  40. Gordon JS, Luloff AE, Stedman RC (2012) A multisite qualitative comparison of community wildfire risk perceptions J For 110(2):74–78.  https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.10-086 Google Scholar
  41. Gordon JS, Matarrita-Cascante D, Stedman RC, Luloff AE (2010) Wildfire perception and community change Rural Sociol 75(3):455–477.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2010.00021.x Google Scholar
  42. Gordon JS, Stedman RC, Luloff AE (2010) West Virginia wildland fire as latent social discontent Soc Nat Resour 23(12):1230–1243.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920903339681 Google Scholar
  43. Hall TEA, Slothower MB (2009) Cognitive factors affecting homeowners’ reactions to defensible space in the Oregon Coast Range Soc Nat Resour 22(2):95–110.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802392187 Google Scholar
  44. Hammer RB, Stewart SI, Radeloff VC (2009) Demographic trends, the wildland-urban interface, and wildfire management Soc Nat Resour 22(8):777–782.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802714042 Google Scholar
  45. Jacobson SK, Monroe MC, Marynowski S (2001) Fire at the wildland interface: the influence of experience and mass media on public knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Wildl Soc Bull 29(3):929–937Google Scholar
  46. Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ (2004) Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res 33(7):14–26Google Scholar
  47. Kaval P (2009) Perceived and actual wildfire danger: an economic and spatial analysis study in Colorado (USA) J Environ Manag 90(5):1862–1867.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.009 Google Scholar
  48. Kneeshaw K, Vaske JJ, Bright AD, Absher JD (2004) Situational influences of acceptable wildland fire management actions Soc Nat Resour 17(November):477–489.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920490452427 Google Scholar
  49. Kumagai Y, Bliss JC, Daniels SE, Carroll MS (2004) Research on causal attribution of wildfire: an exploratory multiple-methods approach Soc Nat Resour 17(January 2013):113–127.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920490261249 Google Scholar
  50. Loomis JB, Bair LS, González-cabán A (2001) Prescribed fire and public support: Knowledge gained, attitudes changed in Florida. J For 99(11):18–22Google Scholar
  51. Martin IM, Bender H, Raish C (2007) What motivates individuals to protect themselves from risks: the case of wildland fires Risk Anal 27(4):887–900.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00930.x Google Scholar
  52. Martin WE, Martin IM, Kent B (2009) The role of risk perceptions in the risk mitigation process: The case of wildfire in high risk communities J Environ Manag 91(2):489–498.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.09.007 Google Scholar
  53. McCaffrey S (2006) Prescribed fire: What influences public approval? In: Dickinson MB (ed) Fire in eastern oak forests: Delivering science to land managers, proceedings of a conference. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, pp 192–198Google Scholar
  54. McCaffrey S (2008) The homeowner view of thinning methods for fire hazard reduction: More positive than many think. In: MG Narog (Tech. Coord.), Proceedings of the 2002 fire conference: Managing fire and fuels in the remaining wildlands and open spaces of the Southwestern United States (Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-189). Albany, CA: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. pp 15–22Google Scholar
  55. McCaffrey SM, Olsen CS (2012) Research perspectives on the public and fire management: a synthesis of current social science on eight essential questions. JFSP Synthesis Reports. 17. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/jfspsynthesis/17
  56. McCaffrey SM, Stidham M, Toman E, Shindler B (2011) Outreach programs, peer pressure, and common sense: what motivates homeowners to mitigate wildfire risk? Environ Manag 48(3):475–488.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9704-6 Google Scholar
  57. McCaffrey SM, Toman E, Stidham M, Shindler B (2013) Social science research related to wildfire management: an overview of recent findings and future research needs Int J Wildland Fire 22(1):15–24.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF11115 Google Scholar
  58. McFarlane BL, McGee TK, Faulkner H (2011) Complexity of homeowner wildfire risk mitigation: an integration of hazard theories Int J Wildland Fire 20(5):921–931.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF10096 Google Scholar
  59. McGee TK, McFarlane BL, Varghese J (2009) An examination of the influence of hazard experience on wildfire risk perceptions and adoption of mitigation measures Soc Nat Resour 22(4):308–323.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920801910765 Google Scholar
  60. McGee TK, Russell S (2003) “It’s just a natural way of life…” an investigation of wildfire preparedness in rural Australia Environ Hazards 5(1):1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazards.2003.04.001 Google Scholar
  61. Meinzen-Dick R, DiGregorio M, McCarthy N (2004) Methods for studying collective action in rural development. Agric Syst 82(3):197–214Google Scholar
  62. Meldrum JR, Champ PA, Brenkert-Smith H, Warziniack T, Barth CM, Falk LC (2015) Understanding gaps between the risk perceptions of wildland-urban interface (WUI) residents and wildfire professionals Risk Anal 35(9):1746–1761.  https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12370 Google Scholar
  63. Miller CA, Campbell LK, Yeagle JA (2002) Attitudes of residents in the greater Chicago region toward prescribed burns and ecological restoration. A report to the Chicago wilderness burn communications team. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL, (Human Dimensions Research Program Report SR-02-02)Google Scholar
  64. Nelson KC, Monroe MC, Johnson JF, Bowers AW (2003) Public perceptions of defensible space and landscape values in Minnesota and Florida. In: Jakes PJ (ed.) Homeowners, communities, and wildfire: Science findings from the National Fire Plan. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN, pp 55–62. (General Technical Report NC-231)Google Scholar
  65. Newman SM, Carroll MS, Jakes PJ, Williams DR, Higgins LL (2014) Earth, wind, and fire: wildfire risk perceptions in a hurricane-prone environment Soc Nat Resour 27(11):1161–1176.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.918234 Google Scholar
  66. Nowell B, Steelman T, Velez A-LK, Yang Z (2017) The structure of effective governance of disasterresponse networks: Insights from the field. The American Review of Public Administration,0275074017724225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074017724225Google Scholar
  67. O’Donnell DT, Venn TJ, Calkin DE (2014) Are wildfire management resources in the United States efficiently allocated to protect resources at risk? A case study from Montana Econ Anal Policy 44(3):318–332.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2014.07.001 Google Scholar
  68. Ojerio R, Moseley C, Lynn K, Bania N (2011) Limited involvement of socially vulnerable populations in federal programs to mitigate wildfire risk in Arizona Nat Hazards Rev 12(1):28–36.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000027 Google Scholar
  69. Paveglio TB, Abrams J, Ellison A (2016) Developing fire adapted communities: the importance of interactions among elements of local context. Soc Nat Resour 29(10):1246–1261Google Scholar
  70. Paveglio TB, Jakes PJ, Carroll MS, Williams DR (2009) Understanding social complexity within the wildland–urban interface: a new species of human habitation? Environ Manag 43(6):1085–1095Google Scholar
  71. Paveglio TB, Moseley C, Carroll MS, Williams DR, Davis EJ, Fischer AP (2015) Categorizing the social context of the wildland urban interface: Adaptive capacity for wildfire and community “archetypes”. For Sci 61(2):298–310Google Scholar
  72. Piatek KB, McGill DW (2010) Perceptions of private forest owners in West Virginia on the use of prescribed fire in forestry Small-Scale For 9(2):227–241.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-010-9112-4 Google Scholar
  73. Poteete AR, Ostrom E (2004) In pursuit of comparable concepts and data about collective action. Agric Syst 82(3):215–232Google Scholar
  74. Reams MA, Haines TK, Renner CR, Wascom MW, Kingre H (2005) Goals, obstacles and effective strategies of wildfire mitigation programs in the Wildland–Urban Interface For Policy Econ 7(5):818–826.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2005.03.006 Google Scholar
  75. Rodriguez Mendez S, Carroll MS, Blatner KA (2003) Smoke on the hill: a comparative study of wildfire and two communities. West J Appl For 18(1):60–70Google Scholar
  76. Roos CI, Scott AC, Belcher CM, Chaloner WG, Aylen J, Bird RB et al. (2016) Living on a flammable planet: interdisciplinary, cross-scalar and varied cultural lessons, prospects and challenges. Philos Trans R Soc B 371(1696):20150469Google Scholar
  77. Ryan RL, Hamin E (2008) Wildfires, communities, and agencies: stakeholders’ perceptions of postfire forest restoration and rehabilitation. J For 106(7):370–379Google Scholar
  78. Ryan RL, Wamsley MB (2006) Perceptions of wildfire threat and mitigation measures by residents of fire-prone communities in the northeast: survey results and wildland fire management implications. In: McCaffrey SM tech ed. The public and wildland fire management: social science findings for managers. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, pp 11–17Google Scholar
  79. Schulte S, Miller KA (2010) Wildfire risk and climate change: the influence on homeowner mitigation behavior in the wildland–urban interface Soc Nat Resour 23(May):417–435.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920903431298 Google Scholar
  80. Sexton T (2006) U. S. federal fuel management programs: Reducing risk to communities and increasing ecosystem resilience and sustainability. In: Andrews PL, Butler BW (eds) Fuels management—How to measure success: Conference proceedings. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp 9–12Google Scholar
  81. Shafran AP (2008) Risk externalities and the problem of wildfire risk J Urban Econ 64(2):488–495.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2008.05.001 Google Scholar
  82. Shindler BA, Reed M (1996) Forest management in the Blue Mountains: Public perspectives on prescribed fire and mechanical thinning. Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, ORGoogle Scholar
  83. Shindler BA, Toman E, McCaffrey SM (2009) Public perspectives of fire, fuels and the Forest Service in the Great Lakes Region: a survey of citizen-agency communication and trust Int J Wildland Fire 18(2):157–164.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF07135 Google Scholar
  84. Toman E, Shindler B (2006) Communicating the wildland fire message: Influences on knowledge and attitude change in two case studies related research. In: Andrews PL, Butler BW (eds.) Fuels management—How to measure success: Conference proceedings. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp 715–728Google Scholar
  85. Toman E, Stidham M, Shindler B, McCaffrey S (2011) Reducing fuels in the wildland/urban interface: community perceptions of agency fuels treatments Int J Wildland Fire 20(3):340–349.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF10042 Google Scholar
  86. Toman E, Stidham M, McCaffrey S, Shindler B (2013) Social science at the wildland-urban interface: A compendium of research results to create fire-adapted communities. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, 75. 10.2737/NRS-GTR-111Google Scholar
  87. Torraco RJ (2005) Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Human Resour Dev Rev 4(3):356–367Google Scholar
  88. Vaske JJ, Absher JD, Bright AD (2007) Salient value similarity, social trust and attitudes toward wildland fire management strategies. Human Ecol Rev 14(2):223–232Google Scholar
  89. Vining J, Merrick MS (2008) The influence of proximity to a national forest on emotions and fire-management decisions Environ Manag 41(2):155–167.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-007-9041-y Google Scholar
  90. Vogt CA, Winter G, Fried JS (2005) Predicting homeowners’ approval of fuel management at the wildland-urban interface using the Theory of Reasoned Action Soc Nat Resour 18(October 2004):337–354.  https://doi.org/10.1080/089419205909 Google Scholar
  91. Walker SH, Rideout DB, Loomis JB, Reich R (2007) Comparing the value of fuel treatment options in northern Colorado’s urban and wildland-urban interface areas For Policy Econ 9(6):694–703.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2006.06.001 Google Scholar
  92. Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW (2006) Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science 313(5789):940–943Google Scholar
  93. Wibbenmeyer MJ, Hand MS, Calkin DE, Venn TJ, Thompson MP (2013) Risk preferences in strategic wildfire decision making: a choice experiment with U.S. wildfire managers Risk Anal 33(6):1021–1037.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01894.x Google Scholar
  94. Wilson RS, Winter PL, Maguire LA, Ascher T (2011) Managing wildfire events: risk-based decision making among a group of federal fire managers Risk Anal 31(5):805–818.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01534.x Google Scholar
  95. Winter G, Fried JS (2000) Homeowner perspectives on fire hazard, responsibility, and management strategies at the wildland-urban interface. Soc Nat Resour 13(1):33–49Google Scholar
  96. Winter GJ, Vogt C, Fried JS (2002) Fuel treatments at the wildland-urban interface: common concerns in diverse regions. J For 100(1):15–21Google Scholar
  97. Wyman M, Malone S, Stein T, Johnson C (2012) Race and wildfire risk perceptions among rural forestland owners in North-Central Florida Soc Nat Resour 25(12):1293–1307.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.681752 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environment and SocietyUtah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations