Hunter and Non-Hunter Perceptions of Costs, Benefits, and Likelihood of Outcomes of Prescribed Fire in the Mid-Atlantic Region

Zachary D. MillerDepartment of Environment and Society, The Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA; Correspondence[email protected]

Hong WuDepartment of Landscape Architecture, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA;

Katherine ZippDepartment of Agricultural Economics, Sociology, and Education, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

Cody L. DemsDepartment of Ecosystem Science and Management, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

Erica SmithwickDepartment of Geography and Earth, Environmental Systems Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

Margot KayeDepartment of Ecosystem Science and Management, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

Peter NewmanDepartment of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

Anthony ZhaoDepartment of Geography and Earth, Environmental Systems Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

Alan TaylorDepartment of Geography and Earth, Environmental Systems Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

show all

Abstract

In the mid-Atlantic region, prescribed fire is as an important tool for natural resource managers to achieve a variety of outcomes, including the management of wildlife habitat and wildfire risk reduction. However, little research has been conducted in this region to help inform managers about public perceptions and acceptance of prescribed fire. In this research, data from intercept surveys of hunter and non-hunters on public lands in New Jersey and Pennsylvania are used to compare perceptions of perceived costs, benefits, and ikelihood of outcomes for these groups related to prescribed fire. Results show that hunters generally had lower levels of perceived costs and likelihood of negative outcomes from prescribed fire than non-hunters. From this, managers using prescribed fire in these areas can better understand public perceptions, differences among recreation users, and possibly better communicate about using prescribed fire as a tool for managing resources.

Keywords:

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Hunter and Non-Hunter Perceptions of Costs, Benefits, and Likelihood of Outcomes of Prescribed Fire in the Mid-Atlantic Region

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

Hunter and Non-Hunter Perceptions of Costs, Benefits, and Likelihood of Outcomes of Prescribed Fire in the Mid-Atlantic Region

Abstract

Correction Statement

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Related research

To cite this article:

Download citation

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

Keep up to date

Your download is now in progress and you may close this window

Login or register to access this feature