Fuel Treatments & Effects
Prescribed Fire-use treatments
One factor that is critical to human judgments about risk, and was often overlooked in past research on public support for fuels treatment, is affect or the largely unconscious negative or positive feelings invoked by a stimulus (in this case, fuels management). This study aims to test a model for public support based on individual knowledge, exposure, affective response, perceived risk and perceived benefit associated with fuels management. Data collection occurred in residential communities throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin, located in the intermountain western region of the United States. Path analyses indicated that support for both prescribed burning and mechanical thinning is driven largely by the perceived benefits of the technique and affective responses (negative or positive reactions to the images automatically associated with a specific technique). Affect also has a significant influence on perceived risk for prescribed burning, whereas perceived risk, in turn, has a significant influence on support for prescribed burning. The results suggest that communication efforts aimed at building support should focus on the benefits to forest health and future fire risk reduction, as these were the most prevalent positive affective associations and the primary benefits of the techniques. For prescribed burning, emphasising the degree of control that managers have over the technique could also counteract negative affective associations and decrease perceived risk.