A Perspective from Wildland Fire Communicators

For those natural resource management organizations charged with communicating about wildland fire, the public's perception of the risks associated with fire and its deeply rooted belief that "fire is bad" poses an immense communications challenge. This paper reports portions of a study that explored the current state of wildland fire communications in the United States from the perspective of wildland fire communicators (Clute, 2000). The study sought to ascertain how wildland fire management organizations can better communicate wildland fire messages in such a manner as to meet societal needs, address community needs/concerns, gain public support, and comply with organizational mandates, all while utilizing the best science and technology available. Specifically, it set out to identify the knowledge, attitudes, skills, and backgrounds of a population of natural resource professionals with wildland fire communication responsibilities. Also queried were both the opportunities and barriers they perceived in the course of conducting their day-to-day responsibilities. Utilizing this information as background, the usefulness of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG)'s wildland fire message themes was explored.

Background

Wildland fire management organizations, such as the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, are trying to "place more emphasis on educating internal and external audiences about how and why we use and manage wildland fire" (USDI & USDA, 1995, p.iv). This is not an easy task for there are many barriers to such an endeavorânot the least of which is the attitude of the American public. Over the years, researchers have identified numerous public concerns and barriers to the acceptance of wildland fire in America's ecosystems. Specifically, these include:

• the risks of fire, especially the possibility of its causing damage to valued assets (DeBano et al., 1998; Hall, 1972; Jacobson, 1999; Shindler, 1997; Taylor and Mutch, 1986);
• emissions from fire, including the health and aesthetic effects of smoke (Omi and Laven, 1982; Shelby and Speaker, 1990; Shindler, 1997; Taylor and Mutch, 1986; Winter and Fried, 2000);
• aesthetic impacts on the landscape (Hall, 1972; Jacobson, 1999; Shelby and Speaker, 1990; Shindler, 1997; Taylor and Daniel, 1984);
• economic losses, mainly to forestry-related activities (Hall, 1972; Shindler, 1997);
• impacts on the ecosystem, including wildlife (Cortner et al., 1984; Hall, 1972; Jacobson, 1999; Shelby and Speaker, 1990; Shindler, 1997);
• confused, disjointed or uncoordinated "messaging" about suppression, and/or the inaccurate interpretation of prevention messages (Jacobson, 1999; Omi and Laven, 1982; Shelby and Speaker, 1990; Taylor and Mutch, 1986); and
• the lack of a consensus among "experts" regarding the use of fire (Glasscock, 1972; Shelby and Speaker, 1990).

Wildland fire communicators serve as intermediaries between organizations which are responsible for message development and the public(s) to whom the message is directed. Their role is critical in both helping to develop and to deliver the message(s) intended to address the public's lack of knowledge and concerns regarding wildland fire management.

Data Collection and Methodology

The data for this study were obtained from 321 responses to a 13-page questionnaire completed during the summer of 2000 by natural resources professionals working in governmental and non-governmental organizations in 47 states and the District of Columbia. The questionnaire was developed utilizing the results of an e-mail administered Delphi instrument and needs assessment of fifteen wildland fire communicators that focused upon the roles of wildland fire communicators, the organizations employing them, and the target audiences to whom wildland fire information is directed. Questionnaire development also drew upon relevant themes identified in the literature.

The Delphi method employs a group of experts at varying locations who provide input through an anonymous, multi-stage, iterative questionnaire process. It has been described as a "qualitative, long-range forecasting technique, that elicits, refines, and draws upon the collective opinion and expertise of a panel of experts" (Gupta and Clarke, 1996, p. 185). Needs assessment is used to assess the needs of a defined population using "a systematic set of procedures undertaken for the purpose of setting priorities and making decisions about program or organizational improvements and allocation of resources" (Witkin and Altschuld, 1995, p. 4). Needs are defined as discrepancies or gaps between "what is" and "what should be" (Witkin and Altschuld, 1995).

Concepts of social marketing were used as a reporting framework in the data analysis phase. Weinreich (1999) defines social marketing as the "use of commercial marketing techniques to promote the adoption of a behavior that will improve the health or well-being of the target audience or of society as a whole" (p. 3). Social marketing's primary focus is on the consumer and on learning what people want and need, rather than trying to persuade them to buy what is being produced (Weinreich, 1999). Many writers have described some form of mnemonic technique use to remind marketers of the principles underlying their marketing efforts. For example, in commercial marketing there are the 4Ps of product, price, promotion, and place that are regularly referred to as the four important aspects of the marketing process that must be well understood and combined in the correct proportions in order to successfully market products or services (Kotler and Armstrong, 1991). With the development of social marketing, there has been an attempt made to expand upon the 4Ps. Fine (1990) suggested the 7Ps of social marketing as being producer, purchaser, product, price, promotion, place, and probing.

Results and Conclusions

A number of conclusions can be drawn from the study. Those who participated in the study reported being well-educated, experienced, have a generally positive attitude, valued teamwork, saw more opportunities than barriers to their efforts, and have a relatively high perception of their knowledge and skills with respect to the organization for which they worked, its mission or mandate, and its role in wildland fire management. Participants reported perceiving significant opportunities for natural resource organizations to build upon their stated commitment of enhancing wildland fire communications. This goal can be accomplished by demonstrating "a commitment" to the public and to a dedicated staff through the allocation of additional resourcesâboth financial and humanâand by undertaking planning to meet future needs.

Wildland fire communicators both require and desire additional training. Their lowest perceived knowledge and skill levels relate to communications activities, such as identifying target audiences, developing communication plans and products, and using evaluative feedback. Particularly needed is additional training in ways to evaluate existing communications' processes and products and develop new ones. Such training is imperative if greater reliance is to be placed on wildland fire communicators and if their role is to be other than a reactive one. Initiating such activities, starting with wildland fire communicators employed in those areas with high fire regimes, but eventually including all communicators, would be desirable and welcomed.

Recognizing that members of the public have limited knowledge of wildland fire, there also is a need for improved and better coordinated messaging directed to them. According to the study participants, a single national wildland fire message with regionally focused and developed subcomponents was reported as the preferred approach to wildland fire communication. Starting with the NWCG messages, it is essential to clarify, simplify, and promote the messaging that is undertaken.

Little has been done to identify or begin to understand the target audience(s) for wildland fire communications. Additional study is required to define those audiences if public education is to be successful, thereby engendering additional support for the reintroduction of wildland fire into America's ecosystems.

Finally, there is an ongoing need to ascertain how wildland fire management organizations can better communicate wildland fire messages in such a manner as to meet societal needs, address community needs/concerns, gain public support, and comply with organizational mandates, all while utilizing the best science and technology available.

Implications for Wildland Fire Communicators

• Learn about your target audiences' knowledge, attitudes, concerns, and needs about wildland fire and its managementâtry thinking of communicating about wildland fire as conveying information to fulfill your target audiences' needs and wants.
• Incorporate evaluation into all of your communication activities and products. Evaluative feedback should be thought of as a continually occurring process to provide information for communication product revisions and for future communication product development.
• Be creative in your approach to wildland fire communication. Why communicate in the same manner you have been if you are getting little "value" for your efforts? Think like the members of your target audiences, and make obtaining wildland fire information worthwhile and easy for them.
• Develop generic, yet flexible, wildland fire information packets for different target audiences, such as homeowners, media, etc. Prepare these products for everyday use, but particularly for times of high fire risk when demands upon you will be the greatest given your audiences' increased interest in wildland fire.
• Collaborateâespecially with other wildland fire communicators and organizations. But do not forget about other important stakeholders outside the field of natural resources, such as non-governmental organizations, business associations, and local citizens' groups.
• Help to reduce wildland fire jargon by using easy to understand, commonly used language and terminology. Interpret the science of fire and fire management.
• As one communicator observed in the study, "The public does not like to be surprised by wildland fire!" Therefore, keep your "customers" informed about wildland fire and its management. Address your target audiences' needs and wants in a timely manner.

References

Clute, K.P. 2000. A Study of Wildland Fire Communications. M.S. Thesis, School of Natural Resources, The Ohio State University.

Cortner, H.J., M.J. Zwolinski, E.H. Carpenter, and J.G. Taylor. 1984. Public Support for Fire-Management Policies. Journal of Forestry 82:359-361.

DeBano, L.F., D.G. Neary, and P.F. Ffolliott. 1998. Fire Effects on Ecosystems. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Fine, S.H. 1990. Social Marketing: Promoting the Causes of Public and Nonprofit Agencies. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Glasscock, H.R. 1972. Forces shaping public opinion toward fire and the environment. In Symposium Proceeding, Fire in the Environment. Denver, CO: Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Gupta, U.G. and R.E. Clarke. 1996. Theory and Application of the Delphi Technique: A Bibliography (1975-1994). Technological Forecasting and Social Change 53:185-211.

Hall, A.D. 1972. Public Attitudes Toward Fire. In Fire in the Environment Symposium Proceedings. Denver, CO: Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. FS-276. pp. 57-63

Jacobson, S.K. 1999. Communication Skills for Conservation Professionals. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kotler, P. and G. Armstrong. 1991. Principles of Marketing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Omi, P.N. and R.D. Laven. 1982. Prescribed Fire Impacts on Recreational Wildlands: A Status Review and Assessment of Research Needs. Eisenhower Consortium for Western Environmental Forestry Research. Bulletin 11.

Shelby, B. and R.W. Speaker. 1990. Public Attitudes and Perceptions about Prescribed Burning. In J.D Walstad, S.R. Radosevich, and D.V. Sandberg (Eds.), Natural and Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. p. 253-260.

Shindler, B. 1997. Public Perspectives on Prescribed Fire and Mechanical Thinning. Technical Notes from the Blue Mountains Natural Resource Institute. BMNRI-TN-9. July 1997. Available on-line at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/bmnri/pubs/tn9.pdf

Taylor, J.G. and T.C. Daniel. 1984. Prescribed fire: Public education and perception. Journal of Forestry 82: 361-365.

Taylor, J.G. and R.W. Mutch. 1986. Fire in Wilderness: Public Knowledge, Acceptance, and Perception. Ogden, UT: National Wilderness Research Conference, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. INT-212.

United States Department of the Interior and United States Department of Agriculture. 1995. Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review: Final Report.

Weinreich, N.K. 1999. Hands-on Social Marketing: A Step-by-Step Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Winter, G. and J.S. Fried. 2000. Valuing the Social and Economic Impacts of Fire at the Urban-Wildland Interface: A Statistical Summary of Survey Responses. Michigan State University Department of Forestry Project Report, USDA Forest Service Cooperative Agreement 239332.

Witkin, B.R. and J.W. Altschuld. 1995. Planning and Conducting Needs Assessments: A Practical Guide. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Author: Kevin Clute