Prescribed burning in your backyard? Connecting perceptions of wildland fire, smoke and exposure mitigation actions

Background There is interest in expanding the use of prescribed fire, but smoke management is often seen as a barrier to burning. Information about perception of prescribed fire smoke is limited. Aims This study examines perceptions of wildland fire and smoke, and willingness to minimize smoke exposure. We further investigate variations in perceptions relative to fire activity and smoke concentrations. Methods We surveyed residents of an area with regular prescribed burning to assess their opinions of fire and smoke, how they would reduce smoke exposure and the influence of prior experience with fire. We surveyed residents of an area with regular prescribed burning to assess their opinions of fire and smoke, how they would reduce smoke exposure and the influence of prior experience with fire. Key results There is a high acceptance of prescribed fire among survey respondents. Prescribed fire smoke is perceived as a low concern and is more acceptable than smoke from other sources. The largest differences in perceptions were observed among different land types. Conclusions This study finds strong support for the use of prescribed fire among respondents. Concerns about health impacts from smoke decrease with increasing prescribed fire acceptance. Most respondents expressed a high willingness to act to reduce smoke exposure. Implications With expanding prescribed fire use, effectively communicating smoke risks will be increasingly important as public concerns, perceived vulnerability and willingness to act may not align.