Norm theory offers a paradigm for understanding why the public judges management actions acceptable or unacceptable. This study assesses normative beliefs about acceptable wildland fire management. The acceptability of three fire management actions for eight scenarios was examined. The scenarios varied by fire origin and fire impact on air quality, private property, forest recovery, and outdoor recreation. The data were obtained from a mail survey of visitors to three national forests: (a) Arapaho-Roosevelt, Colorado (n = 469), (b) Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, Washington (n = 498), and (b) San Bernardino, California (n = 321). Results of a mixed design ANOVA indicated that the acceptability of wildland fire management actions varied according to the fire scenario evaluated, but substantive differences in normative beliefs were not noted among the three forests. Chi-square analyses identified differences in normative agreement for fire management actions across scenarios but did not reveal substantive differences in normative agreement between forests.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brunson, M. W. (1993). “Socially acceptable” forestry: What does it imply for ecosystem management? Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 8(4), 116-119.
2.
Carpenter, E. H., Taylor, J. G., Cortner, H. J., Gardner, P. D., Zwolinski, M. J., & Daniel, T. C. (1986). Targeting audiences and content for forest fire information programs. Journal of Environmental Education, 17(3), 33-42.
3.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Cortner, H. J., Zwolinski, M. J., Carpenter, E. H., & Taylor, J. G. (1984). Public support for fire-management policies. Journal of Forestry, 82(6), 359-361.
5.
Davis, J. B. (1990). The wildland-urban interface: Paradise or battleground? Journal of Forestry, 88(1), 26-31.
6.
Donnelly, M. P., Vaske, J. J., Whittaker, D., & Shelby, B. (2000). Toward an understanding of norm prevalence: A comparative analysis of 20 years of research. Environmental Management, 25(4), 403-414.
7.
Gliner, J. A., Vaske, J. J., & Morgan, G. A. (2001). Null hypothesis significance testing: Effect size matters. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 6(4), 291-301.
8.
Jackson, J. M. (1965). Structural characteristics of norms. In I. D. Steiner & M. F. Fishbein (Eds.), Current studies in social psychology (pp. 301-309). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
9.
Jacobson, S. K., Monroe, M. C., & Marynowski, S. (2001). Fire at the wildland interface: The influence of experience and mass media on public knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29(3), 929-937.
10.
Manfredo, M. J., Yuan, S. M., & McGuire, F. A. (1992). The influence of attitude accessibility on attitude-behavior relationships: Implications for recreation research. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(2), 157-170.
11.
Miller, C., Landres, P. B., & Alaback, P. B. (2000). Evaluating risks and benefits of wildland fire at landscape scales. In L. F. Neuenschwander & K. C. Ryan (Comps.), Proceedings—Crossing the millennium integrating spatial technologies and ecological principles for a new age in fire management (pp. 78-87). Moscow: University of Idaho.
12.
Perrett, L. (1998). A plan for success in the wildland-urban interface. Fire Management Notes, 58(2), 9-11.
13.
Shelby, B., & Speaker, R. W. (1990). Public attitudes and perceptions of prescribed burning. I J. D. Walstead, S. R. Radosevich, & D. V. Sandberg (Eds.), Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific NW forests (pp. 253-260). Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.
14.
Shelby, B., & Vaske, J. J. (1991). Using normative data to develop evaluative standards for resource management: A comment on three recent papers. Journal of Leisure Research, 23, 173-187.
15.
Shelby, B., Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (1996). Norms, standards, and natural resources. Leisure Sciences, 18, 103-123.
16.
Taylor, J. G., Carpenter, E. H., Cortner, H. J., & Cleaves, D. A. (1988). Risk perception and behavioral context: U.S. Forest Service fire management professionals. Society and Natural Resources, 1, 253-268.
17.
Taylor, J. G., Cortner, H. J., Gardner, P. D., Daniel, T. C., Zwolinski, M. J., & Carpenter, E. H. (1986). Recreation and fire management: Public concerns, attitudes, and perceptions. Leisure Sciences, 8(2), 167-187.
18.
Taylor, J. G., & Mutch, R. W. (1986). Fire in wilderness: Public knowledge, acceptance, and perceptions. In Proceedings National Wilderness Research Conference: Current research (pp. 49-59). Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station.
19.
Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (2002). Generalizing the encounter—norm—crowding relationship. Leisure Sciences, 24, 255-269.
20.
Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P., Williams, D. R., & Jonker, S. (2001). Demographic influences on environmental value orientations and normative beliefs about national forest management. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 761-776.
21.
Vaske, J. J., Gliner, J. A., & Morgan, G. A. (2002). Communicating judgments about practical significance: Effect size, confidence intervals and odds ratios. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 7(4), 287-300.
22.
Vaske, J. J., Shelby, B. B., Graefe, A. R., & Heberlein, T. A. (1986). Backcountry encounter norms: Theory, method and empirical evidence. Journal of Leisure Research, 18, 137-153.
23.
Weldon, L. A. C. (1996). Dealing with public concerns in restoring fire to the forest. In Proceedings—The use of fire in forest restoration (pp. 56-58). Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station.
24.
Wittmann, K., Vaske, J. J., Manfredo, M. J., & Zinn, H. C. (1998). Standards for lethal response to problem urban wildlife. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 3(4), 29-48.
25.
Zinn, H. C., Manfredo, M. J., Vaske, J. J., & Wittmann, K. (1998). Using normative beliefs to determine the acceptability of wildlife management actions. Society and Natural Resources, 11(7), 649-662.
