Expert judgment and uncertainty regarding the protection of imperiled species.

Decisions concerning the appropriate listing status of species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) can be controversial even among conservationists. These decisions may determine whether a species persists in the near term and have long-lasting social and political ramifications. Given the ESA's mandate that such decisions be based on the best available science, it is important to examine what factors contribute to experts' judgments concerning the listing of species. We examined how a variety of factors (such as risk perception, value orientations, and norms) influenced experts' judgments concerning the appropriate listing status of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Experts were invited to complete an online survey examining their perceptions of the threats grizzly bears face and their listing recommendation. Although experts' assessments of the threats to this species were strongly correlated with their recommendations for listing status, this relationship did not exist when other cognitive factors were included in the model. Specifically, values related to human use of wildlife and norms (i.e., a respondent's expectation of peers' assessments) were most influential in listing status recommendations. These results suggest that experts' decisions about listing, like all human decisions, are subject to the use of heuristics (i.e., decision shortcuts). An understanding of how heuristics and related biases affect decisions under uncertainty can help inform decision making about threatened and endangered species and may be useful in designing effective processes for protection of imperiled species.

Public acceptance of wildland fire and fuel management: panel responses in seven locations.

Wildland fire affects both public and private resources throughout the United States. A century of fire suppression has contributed to changing ecological conditions and accumulated fuel loads. Managers have used a variety of approaches to address these conditions and reduce the likelihood of wildland fires that may result in adverse ecological impacts and threaten communities. Public acceptance is a critical component of developing and implementing successful management programs. This study examines the factors that influence citizen support for agency fuel reduction treatments over time-particularly prescribed fire and mechanical vegetation removal. This paper presents findings from a longitudinal study examining resident beliefs and attitudes regarding fire management and fuels treatments in seven states: Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, Utah, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The study was implemented in two phases over a 6-year period using mail surveys to residents of communities adjacent to federal lands in each location. Questions replicated measures from the original project as well as some new items to allow a more in-depth analysis of key concepts. The study design enables comparisons over time as well as between locations. We also assess the factors that influence acceptance of both prescribed fire and mechanical vegetation removal. Findings demonstrate a relative stability of attitudes toward fuels management approaches over time and suggest that this acceptance is strongly influenced by confidence in resource managers and beliefs that the treatments would result in positive outcomes.

Communicating about smoke from wildland fire: challenges and opportunities for managers.

Wildland fire and associated management efforts are dominant topics in natural resource fields. Smoke from fires can be a nuisance and pose serious health risks and aggravate pre-existing health conditions. When it results in reduced visibility near roadways, smoke can also pose hazardous driving conditions and reduce the scenic value of vistas. Communicating about smoke, whether in the preparation phases before a planned burn or during a wildfire event, can enable those at risk to make informed decisions to minimize their exposure to smoke or choose alternate activities that mitigate smoke completely. To date, very little research has been completed on the social aspects of smoke, such as communication or public perceptions. Here, we present findings from an exploratory study that examined challenges and opportunities related to communication (within agencies or to the public) for management of smoke from wildland fires. Interviews were conducted in California, Oregon, Montana, and South Carolina among a purposive sample of individuals, who are involved in fire or smoke management. Findings indicate that smoke poses several challenges to management agencies. Findings also provide insight into potential strategies to address such challenges by improving communication in both inter- and intra-agency situations as well as with members of the public. In particular, prioritizing fire and smoke-related communication within agencies, allocating agency resources specifically for training in communication and outreach endeavors, taking advantage of existing resources including informal social networks among the public, and building long-term relationships both between agencies and with the public were viewed as effective.

Outreach programs, peer pressure, and common sense: what motivates homeowners to mitigate wildfire risk?

In recent years, altered forest conditions, climate change, and the increasing numbers of homes built in fire prone areas has meant that wildfires are affecting more people. An important part of minimizing the potential negative impacts of wildfire is engaging homeowners in mitigating the fire hazard on their land. It is therefore important to understand what makes homeowners more or less willing to take action. The research presented here comes from a study that interviewed a total of 198 homeowners in six communities in the western United States about the activities they had undertaken to mitigate their fire risk, the factors that contributed to their decisions, and their future intentions. The current paper reports on findings from the first half of the longitudinal study, after 3 years we will return to interview the current homeowner on the same properties to assess maintenance actions and facilitating and limiting factors. Overall we found a body of individuals who understand the fire risk, are taking numerous mitigation actions, and think that these actions have reduced their risk. These homeowners typically did not expect the government to do it for them: they wanted information about what to do and, in some cases, assistance with the work, but saw taking care of their property primarily as their responsibility. Responses also show that key information sources and motivating factors vary by location and that it is not inherently necessary to have relationships between community members to create defensible space.