1. Fuel Reduction Communication Strategies for Land Managers Carin E. Vadala, Robert D. Bixler Jeffrey J. Bransford Thomas A.Waldrop This study was funded by the Southern Research Station, Center for Forest Disturbance Science Research Work Unit

7. Results Characteristics the three Segments were based on: Categories/Variables (reliability score) Let Nature Takes its Course (LNTC) Management for Human Benefits (MHB) Visually Appealing (VA) Knowledge of Southern Appalachian Ecology and Fuel Reduction Effects Medium -.20 High .82 Low -.57 Changes/Acceptability Factors --Decreased soil and water qualities (.60) Low -.30 High .31 Medium .08 --Reduction in rhododendron, mountain laurel, wildflowers (.84) Low -.45 High .83 Medium -.23

8. The Segments cont. Changes/Acceptability Factors LNTC MHB VA --Improve habitat for non-game animals (.88) High .41 High .52 Low -1.1 --Easier to see and walk through the forests, new plant growth (.75) Low -.77 High .87 Medium .12 --Prevent damage from wildfires to property (.83) Low -.53 High .52 Medium .10 --Residual burn marks on trees and reduced air quality (.78) Low -.41 High .98 Low -.48 --Improve game habitat, turkey, deer, trout and increase blueberry shrubs (.69) Low -.11 High .36 Low -.21 --Increase standing dead and downed trees (.78) Medium .24 High .38 Low -.61

9. The Segments cont. Perceptual evaluation (photo preference scales) LNTC MHB VA Charred areas evident with sprouting stumps, moderate visibility (.85) Medium -.01 High .37 Low -.33 Forest floor with rhododendron , limited visibility (.68) High .43 Medium -.02 Low -.48 Deep visual penetration, smooth ground surfaces (.72) Low -.06 High .23 Low -.14

11. Attitudes: Management of Forests abc Means with different superscripts are significantly different. Variable (reliability score) LNTC MHB VA F Uses of forests for economic and utilitarian benefits (.84) Low -.53 a High .63 b Medium .06 c 58.17 Limit management of forests (.65) High .45 a Low -.51 b Medium .07 c 46.07 Forests managed through fire or accidental fires are less enjoyable (.68) High .34 a Low -.63 b High .28 a 57.90 Support for government management of forests (.75) Low .41 a High .59 b Low -.20 a 46.98 Prefer federal government management over state (.86) High .36 a Medium -.07 b Low -.31 b 7.59

12. Preference: Recreation Activities abc Means with different superscripts are significantly different. Recreation Activities (reliability score) LNTC MHB VA F Deer, turkey, bear hunting and fishing (.87) Low -.36 a High .45 b Medium .01 c 35.67 Tent camping, backpacking, kayak, canoe, mountain biking (.75) High .27 a High .20 a Low -.49 b 35.91 Wildlife watching, photography, birding, wildflowers (.76) High .27 a High .10 a Low -.42 b 27.14 Recreational driving to view scenery and RV camping (.68) Low -.24 a High .11 b High .18 b 10.62 Collecting edible berries, herbs or mushrooms (.78) High .04 a High .21 a Low -.25 b 9.73 Trail running, geocaching, orienteering (.68) High .19 a High .06 a Low -.33 b 9.68 Horseback riding on trails -.02 -.03 .06 .428

13. Attention Paid to, and Perception of Forest Health abc Means with different superscripts are significantly different. LNTC MHB VA F Rating of the health of Southern Appalachian Forests Medium -.002 ab High .14 a Low -.15 b 3.74 Rating of the health of Southern Appalachian Forests in your area .03 .08 -.11 1.7 Attention paid to forest issues or problems Medium .03 a Low -.38 b High .31 c 24.15 How well informed about forest conditions in Southern Appalachians Medium .09 a Low -.45 b High .29 c 29.06 How often are visits made to forests in Southern Appalachians Medium -.03 ab Low -.09 a High .13 b 2.37 Priority to environmental or economic conditions Low -.51 a High .24 b High .39 b 53.21

14. Awareness and Support of Fuel Reduction *p<.01 Segment (Expected) Chi-Square Phi LNTC MHB VA Have you heard of Mechanical Fuel Reduction Yes 98 (109) 133 (96) 71 (98) 52.02* .31 No 95 (84) 37 (74) 102 (76) Support of Prescribed fire or Mechanical Fuel Reduction Yes 115 (149) 149 (119) 126 (122) 63.79* .35 No 82 (48) 8 (38) 36 (40)

15. Club and Organization Membership *p<.01 Segment (Expected) Chi Square Phi Type of club/organization LNTC MHB VA Timber or other forest products Yes 39 (54) 77 (42) 27 (47) 54.28* .31 No 176 (161) 92 (127) 159 (139) Hunting Yes 47 (71) 88 (56) 53 (61) 40.01* .26 No 169 (145) 84 (116) 134 (126) Historical/cultural preservation Yes 63 (54) 50 (44) 32 (47) 9.57* .13 No 151 (160) 121 (128) 153 (138) Environmental preservation Yes 128 (91) 66 (70) 46 (78) 48.86* .29 No 89 (126) 101 (97) 140 (108)

16. Club and Organization Membership cont. *p<.01 Segment (Expected) Chi Square Phi Type of club/organization LNTC MHB VA Environmental conservation Yes 134 (118) 126 (95) 54 (101) 75.29* .36 No 82 (98) 48 (79) 131 (84) Hiking clubs Yes 85 (59) 35 (47) 37 (51) 25.47* .21 No 129 (155) 135 (123) 149 (135) Fishing Yes 52 (64) 70 (51) 50 (57) 14.94* .16 No 159 (147) 97 (116) 137 (130)

17. Demographics *p<.01 LNTC MHB VA F Year of Birth Younger 1957 a Younger 1957 a Older 1952 b 7.47 Yearly income High 3.94 a High 3.99 a Low 3.12 b 16.49 Education High 12.37 a High 12.77 a Low 10.12 b 48.55 Segment Chi Square Phi LNTC MHB VA Male 141 (154) 145 (128) 127 (131) 14.51* .16 Female 66 (53) 26 (44) 49 (45) Taken more than four biology courses in college Yes 61 (77) 102 (65) 20 (41) 60.78* .37 No 123 (107) 53 (90) 78 (57)

18. *p<.01 Demographics cont. Segment Chi Square Phi LNTC MHB VA Current home located In a city 33 (27) 22 (22) 16 (22) 24.26* .21 In a small town 47 (41) 39 (34) 22 (34) On a farm 16 (20) 15 (17) 23 (17) In a suburb 30 (28) 29 (23) 15 (23) In the country 76 (87) 64 (73) 91 (72) Livelihood dependent on timber Yes 23 (34) 47 (29) 22 (29) 20.70* .20 No 178 (167) 122 (140) 151 (144) Livelihood dependent on special forest products Yes 12 (20) 26 (17) 16 (17) 8.97* .13 No 186 (178) 143 (152) 157 (156)

24. Questions?