CSIRO PUBLISHING

www.publish.csiro.au/journals/ijwf International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2004, 13, 413–425

Living with fire: homeowner assessment of landscape valuesand defensible space in Minnesota and Florida, USA

Kristen C. NelsonA,D, Martha C. MonroeB, Jayne Fingerman JohnsonC and Alison BowersB

ADepartment of Forest Resources and Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology,University of Minnesota, 115 Green Hall, 1530 Cleveland Ave. No., St Paul, MN 55108-6112, USA.BSchool of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, PO Box 110410, Gainesville,

FL 32611-0410, USA. Telephone: +1 352 846 0878; fax: +1 352 846 1277; email: mcmonroe@ufl.eduCConservation Biology Graduate Program, University of Minnesota, 199 McNeal Hall,

Upper Buford Circle, St Paul, MN 55108, USA.DCorresponding author. Telephone: +1 612 624 1277; fax: +1 612 625 5212; email: kcn@umn.edu

Abstract. Homeowners’ preferences for vegetation and defensible space near their homes were documented forwildfire-prone areas in Florida and Minnesota (USA) through 80 in-depth interviews and home site visits. Thedominant preference for ‘natural’ landscapes was articulated as valuing vegetated views, wildlife, recreation, quiet,solitude, and privacy. Homeowners recognized wildfire risk but varied in their perceptions of effective wildfireprevention measures and willingness to take actions to reduce their risk. Most supported prescribed burns, especiallyif fire experts who understand the local ecology and fire behavior conduct the burns.

Additional keywords: fuel treatment preferences; homeowner behaviors; landscape preferences; vegetation reduc-tion; wildfire; wildfire risk perception.

Introduction

Recent experience with wildfire in the United States high-lights important changes in our forested landscape over thelast 30 years. In the past, wildfires might have raged in wildspaces, generating smoke columns and dismay, but cause lit-tle concern for public safety (Pyne 1995). Today our forestsare rimmed and transected with second homes, trailers, vil-lages, retirement centers, and thriving communities (Davis1990; Macie and Hermansen 2002). In this wildland–urbaninterface, most wildfires threaten human structures and arecostly to control. As a result fire policy for interface forestson public lands becomes a contentious political arena, as it ison many public lands (Lichtman 1998).

Reducing the vegetative fuel load in forests around com-munities is the most logical strategy to reduce the intensityof a wildfire and give fire fighters greater opportunitiesto protect homes (Cohen 2000). Fuel reduction techniquescommonly used in large tracts include prescribed fire and her-bicides, while owners of smaller properties may use thinningand trimming to reduce fuel loads. Each of these techniquesoffers different advantages, disadvantages, and likelihood ofpublic acceptance. On one hand, prescribed fire is often thepreferred tool among forest managers because it mimics nat-ural fire, helps restore forest health, and reduces the numberand extent of wildfires (Koehler 1991). On the other hand, it

is a technique that can generate tremendous anxiety and neg-ative reactions among homeowners. In Florida, those livingin the wildland–urban interface fear that prescribed fire willharm wild animals or race out of control toward their homes(Jacobson et al. 2001).

Residents in forested landscapes can play an importantrole in reducing their risk by creating defensible space fortheir homes (Cohen and Saveland 1997; Lavin 1997) andreducing the probability of fire ignition sites. Thinning, trim-ming, burning, or simply not planting shrubs and trees in thelandscaped area around a home may achieve this.The distancefrom the house that should be managed as defensible spacevaries, depending upon slope, vegetation density, and plantspecies but many suggest 9 m around the home and reduc-tion of vegetation up to and beyond 30 m (US Forest Service2001). By actively managing their property, homeownersbecome an important partner in wildfire preparedness.

Motivating homeowners to create defensible spacerequires a better understanding of homeowner values, knowl-edge, perceptions, and current actions in order to lay thefoundation for a successful wildfire preparedness partnershipbetween homeowners and public land managers (Hodgson1995; Machlis et al. 2002). For this article, the study objec-tives were to: (1) identify the current uses and valueshomeowners place on their landscape; (2) determine the

© IAWF 2004 10.1071/WF03067 1049-8001/04/040413

414 K. C. Nelson et al.

knowledge and perception they have of their risk of wild-fire; and (3) evaluate their intentions to create defensiblespace. An additional objective was to compare homeowneropinions about various fuel treatments on neighboring pub-lic lands. Understanding these factors will enable agen-cies to more effectively promote defensible space andwildfire preparedness across a mosaic of landownershiptypes.

Literature review

Factors influencing the use of defensible space

Adding to the complexity faced by fire managers and nat-ural resource planners are the suite of values homeownershold and express in their land management decisions. AsKellert (1996: 9) points out, environmental values are fun-damental to ‘our human identity and fulfillment depend(s)to a great extent on the satisfactory expression of thesevalues . . . reflect(ing) a profound human craving for affil-iating with nature and wildlife’. Many homeowners value theclose proximity of trees and shrubs for a variety of personaland environmental reasons, and either are not aware of ordownplay the risk they pose of wildfire. Residents may wishto attract wildlife to their feeders, retain a privacy screen,or conserve energy with existing trees and shrubs. Vininget al. (1984) determined that some residential developmentsin forested landscapes contributed to the scenic quality ofthe area. Surrounding vegetation, low density, and the choiceof design and building materials were variables that could bemanipulated to create more preferred scenic beauty. Hodgson(1995) explains that residents surveyed in California’s inter-mix are knowledgeable about defensible space but perceivethat it is ‘incompatible with landscape values’ (p. 95). In thecase of at-risk landowners, it is important to understand theirlandscape values—what they cherish and maintain in thespaces near their home, how they use their landscape, andwhat they would change to reduce risk.

Other commonly investigated factors that influence ahomeowner’s motivation to take action are their knowledgeabout and perception of wildfire risk. For example, convincedthat fire will not strike twice in the same place, recent wildfiresurvivors tend to discount their risk, even if their ecosystemburns at a regular and frequent interval (Gardner et al. 1987).Basic ignorance of wildland fire could lead many residentsto underestimate their risk of wildland fire. Residents whobelieve forest fires are basically random events that no onecan control may be less likely to support protective measuresor take actions to reduce their risk (Winter and Fried 2000).Educated and knowledgeable residents, however, may takeresponsibility for their home protection. A Florida surveyfound that 42% of those surveyed had already taken precau-tionary actions such as removing shrubs and branches fromnear the home and moving flammable objects like woodpilesaway from the house (Monroe et al. 1999).

In other literature, the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen1991) contributes to an understanding of links betweenpsychological variables (e.g. attitudes, subjective norms, andperceived control) and actual behavior. Of particular interestfor wildfire preparedness is the homeowners’ perception ofcontrol related to wildfire behavior and efficacy of differentwildfire preparedness techniques. Focus groups in Michiganreveal that, although homeowners believe they are responsi-ble for fireproofing their property, they are not motivated todo so, in part because of the evident randomness of wildfiredestruction; their efforts may not matter (Winter and Fried2000). In their case perceived control is too low to influenceintention. In Florida, self-reported experience with smokeand wildland fire was positively correlated with increasedknowledge and attitudes, but negatively correlated with inten-tions to reduce risk through landscape changes (Jacobsonet al. 2001). A survey of two California communities foundthat residents who experienced fire perceived they were atless risk than their neighbors (Gardner et al. 1987).

Finally, public reactions to wildfire have become moresophisticated over the last 20 years, evolving from a ‘fireis bad’ perspective to a deeper understanding that fire playsan important role in many forest ecosystems (Cortner et al.1990). But despite this understanding there are mixed find-ings regarding public support for prescribed fire as a fueltreatment technique. In some areas of the nation, cultureand history may contribute to ‘universally negative per-ceptions of prescribed fires’ as it did among Michiganrespondents (Winter and Fried 2000), whileTaylor and Daniel(1984) found support for prescribed burning in Arizonarespondents.

These differences in perception may be the result of realdifferences in wildfire risk thanks to variation in topogra-phy, ecosystem, climate, and weather across North America.Because every state has some degree of risk, however, defen-sible space messages are distributed to all wildland–urbaninterface residents with little modification. This comparativestudy will help determine if there are regional differences inhow homeowners from two at risk interface areas (Floridaand Minnesota) perceive their landscape, risk of fire, andwillingness to reduce that risk with defensible space. Morespecifically, given differences in ecosystem and fire fre-quency in Florida and Minnesota, is there a comparabledifference in risk and intention to create defensible space?Given the differences in culture, history, and demographics,is there a comparable difference in the values homeownersexpress about their land, landscape, and fuel treatments onneighboring public lands?

Methods

Neighborhoods at risk of wildland fire in north-easternMinnesota and north central Florida were chosen purposely.In large neighborhoods, streets were identified that had

Homeowner assessment of defensible space, Minnesota and Florida 415

Study neighborhood locality

Minnesota

Florida

N

Fig. 1. Map of study sites in Minnesota and Florida, USA, 2002.

properties at risk of wildfire and information was obtainedon each lot from the county tax assessor’s offices. In smallneighborhoods a complete sample was taken. In both casesthe population was those homeowners with a local addressand working phone number who owned at least 1 acre atrisk of wildfire by their proximity to forested areas. Contactswere made in each state until about 40 residents agreed tobe interviewed. Residents participated in the in-depth inter-view at their home and completed a two-page survey. Toreduce the effect of respondent bias, the study was describedas exploring ‘the values residents have about their yard andlandscape’. The risk of fire and term ‘defensible space’ werenot mentioned until half-way through the interview.

In Minnesota, two neighboring communities were selectedalong Gunflint and Caribou Trails in Cook County (Fig. 1).The Gunflint Trail, a 63 mile dead-end county highway head-ing north-west out of Grand Marais, is a corridor of privateproperty surrounded by public lands in a boreal forest land-scape. The Caribou Trail is a 15 mile dead-end road runningnorth out of Lutsen, Minnesota and has a larger hardwoodforest component, especially at its southern end. This studysite is located near the Superior National Forest, adjacentto the Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness, along the

north-western border of Lake Superior. In this fire-prone,boreal forest ecosystem of fir, spruce, and pine (Cardille et al.2001) on top of the Canadian Shield, wildfire risk has longbeen of concern (Frissell 1973; Heinselman 1973, 1996),even though the risk may not be as great as some Westernforests. In 1999, a strong wind event (a derecho with windsin excess of 100 mph) blew down trees, exacerbating fuelloads on 600 square miles of forested land. Prescribed burnsand mechanical clearing have been and continue to be imple-mented along the Gunflint Corridor and in federal lands toreduce the risk to private property.

Florida respondents lived in six neighborhoods in Volusia,St Johns, Marion, and Alachua Counties. All neighborhoodswere at risk of wildland fire due to nearby public or privateforest lands (such as St Johns River Water ManagementDistrict properties and Buck Lake Wildlife ManagementArea). Pine flatwoods with an understory of gallberry(Ilexglabra), palmetto (Serenoa repens), and wax myrtle(Myrica cerifera) are fire-dependent systems and extremelyflammable. The influx of residential developments, however,requires that fires be suppressed and in some cases limitsthe use of prescribed fire. Vegetation quickly fills the for-est understory in the long growing season and vines create

416 K. C. Nelson et al.

43 26

77 96

86

97 62

Fig. 2. Minnesota and Florida homes with the range of landscape vegetation found in the study, USA, 2002. Minnesota photos appear on the leftand Florida on the right. From the top of page to bottom, vegetation progresses from least to most dense.

ladder fuels. When periodic summer drought accompaniesthunderstorms, the risk of wildfire is severe. Much of northcentral Florida is industrial forest-land, planted with dense,fast-growing pines for pulp and cellulose.

To enable residents to speak more generally about theirlikes and dislikes, without focusing on their own yard,11 photographs of interface homes representing a range of

landscapes were used to prompt participants to reveal whatthey liked and why (Fig. 2 for examples). Later, four pho-tographs of computer-modified landscapes surrounding ahouse were used to demonstrate 9 m of defensible space(Fig. 3) and ask about the relative acceptability of vegetationremoval. Once wildfire and defensible space were mentioned,additional open-ended questions were asked about perception

Homeowner assessment of defensible space, Minnesota and Florida 417

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D

Fig. 3. Computer modified home sites for Minnesota and Florida, presenting four options for defensible space, USA, 2002. Minnesota photosappear on the left and Florida on the right. These pictures were used to generate homeowner comparative responses about (A) dense vegetationtouching the house, (B) vegetation around the house, (C) vegetation removed to 9 m, and (D) vegetation removed to more than 9 m.

of risk of wildfire, neighbors’approval of vegetation removal,efficacy of protection measures, recent respondent actionsto reduce wildland fire, experience with wildland fire, andperceptions of various fuel treatments. The survey includedscaled questions about specific strategies to reduce fire riskand demographic details.

The interview guide and the survey were pilot tested withinterface residents in both states, reviewed by colleagues,and revised. Interviews were recorded with tapes and fieldnotes usually by two interviewers. Field notes were typedafter each interview and checked against tapes. Each wasread by two or three reviewers for themes, and the themes

418 K. C. Nelson et al.

were organized and interpreted using Strauss and Corbin(1990) analysis procedures of grounded theory. Survey datawere entered into Microsoft Excel and summarized with fre-quencies. The mixed methods used in this study enable us toreport on both general tendencies in themes from open-endedquestions in the interviews and frequencies from the survey.All percentages reported here come from closed questions onthe survey.All quotes were transcribed from taped interviews.

In total, 80 interviews were completed. In Florida,78 respondents were identified and contacted, and 43interviews were completed for a 55% completion rate. InMinnesota, 46 respondents were selected randomly andcontacted, and 37 interviews were completed for an 80%completion rate. Given the difference in response rates, thereis a possibility the Florida respondents were more inclinedto value their landscape than non-respondents, but the biasshould not influence our discussion of defensible space orfire risk as these concepts were not mentioned. In Minnesota,this bias is less likely given the response rate; most non-respondents wanted to be interviewed but we could not workout a visit to their homes during the interview period. Overall,this sample of 80 individuals is not designed to be a repre-sentative sample of the communities but rather an in-depthlook at the range of perceptions and types of knowledge andbehaviors for wildfire preparedness.

Comparison of respondents, homes, and ecosystems

The two samples were similar in that 70% (Florida) and78% (Minnesota) of the participants owned 1–5 acres atrisk of wildland fire. All of the Florida respondents werepermanent residents and, by research design, half the Min-nesota respondents were permanent residents.The distinctionbetween permanent and seasonal residents in Minnesota wasnot indicative of any major variation, so the results arereported for one Minnesota dataset. While half the Floridianshad lived in their homes for 3–10 years, half the Minnesotanshad lived in their homes for more than 10 years. Most partic-ipants had lived in their respective states, however, for morethan 10 years. In both states, the respondents represented arange of incomes. More Minnesota participants were retired(50% compared to 21% of Floridians) and had a collegedegree (71% in Minnesota and 44% in Florida).

Homes in Minnesota were summer cabins and year-roundhomes. Many were designed to blend into the forest orbe set back from the lake. Homes in Florida were morevaried. While a few were mobile homes or recently builtmini-mansions, most were modest structures with diversedesigns, including ranch homes, split-levels, and bungalows.Florida residents owned properties valued from US$30 000to US$300 000; Minnesota residents owned properties valuedfrom US$83 000 to US$332 000.

The two regions sampled in Minnesota offer remote,wooded, end-of-the-road retreats. Those who choose this

environment tend to have a frontier, do-it-yourself spirit.Increasingly, new residents run small business over the Inter-net.The five neighborhoods sampled in Florida varied in theirattraction. One neighborhood had a covenant rule requiringhomeowners to maintain 40% of the native vegetation oneach lot; many homes were hidden behind tree/shrub screens.Two neighborhoods were minutes from the inter-coastalwaterway and I-95; commuting to work and recreational siteswas easy. Another neighborhood was so remote that someneighbors checked with each other before venturing out tothe grocery.

Results

Landscape uses and values

In an effort to encourage the respondents to discuss theirlandscape uses and what they value in their landscape, werandomly arranged 11 photographs representing a range ofhome landscape types from the area and asked respondentsto discuss what they liked and did not like about any of thehome sites (Fig. 2).We also asked how they like to use the landright around their home and how they manage it. Finally, withcomputer-modified photos, we asked them to consider whatvegetation management options they liked and why (Fig. 3).

Minnesota and Florida respondents had several similarimportant values—concepts of what is good or desirable—fortheir landscape that influenced their decisions about defen-sible space. They appreciated the natural appearance of thenearby woods, the view out their windows, and the recre-ational opportunities available on their land. They valuedprivacy and seclusion, and they enjoyed not only seeingnearby wildlife but also knowing that they were providingwildlife habitat on their property. Overall, respondents in bothstates preferred a natural appearance to their landscape, butthe local ecosystem and the residents’ uses influenced whatconstitutes ‘natural’. For example:

‘I clear a dead tree if it falls in the driveway. Otherwise,I leave it wild . . . dead trees are a part of the forest.’(Minnesota)

‘Natural is my ideal look, trees for shade and attractingwildlife.’ (Florida)

What respondents called natural and the types of activi-ties they enjoyed, however, were more varied in Florida thanin Minnesota. About one-fourth of the Florida respondentsspoke of the importance of open space around their homes toreduce crime, for gardening, and for pets. While they mighthave known that this space also protects them from wildfire,fire was not their main reason for creating and maintainingthese openings:

‘I like the cleared look and the expanse of a grass lawn.’(Florida)

Homeowner assessment of defensible space, Minnesota and Florida 419

Others preferred to maintain the natural ecosystem:

‘I see grass and I wonder what (native species) was takenaway.’ (Florida)

‘Lawns don’t belong around here. It doesn’t blend inwith the surroundings.’ (Minnesota)

The natural landscapes referred to by the respondentsprovided many qualities. One important quality was theaesthetically appealing viewscapes they had as they movedaround their land or sat at their kitchen table:

‘Actually, it would be nice to be outside but of coursewith the heat and everything, the mosquitoes, you tendto be inside so seeing green from every window is reallyimportant to us.’ (Florida)

‘Gazing out the windows is a main form of entertain-ment.’ (Minnesota)

Central to the concept of a natural landscape was the abilityto watch wildlife and provide for wildlife habitat, a qual-ity indicated by Minnesotans (70%) and Floridians (53%)on the survey. In the interviews, the verbs these respondentsused to describe their relationship with wildlife emphasizedthis value with more than a casual mention, they stated ‘Ilove . . .’, ‘I care for . . .’, ‘I take care of . . .’, or ‘I keep trackof . . .’ wildlife:

‘I feed the birds and enjoy watching wildlife. I love theforest and I love nature, and there are more animals andwildlife with trees.’ (Minnesota)

‘I like native vegetation too because it attracts birds andother wildlife, a major part of the attraction of livingwhere we do.’ (Florida)

In addition, respondents lived in these natural landscapesbecause they provided an environment of quiet and solitudefor the individual as well as created privacy and seclusion inrelation to others. Respondents in both states referred to thevegetative attributes of the land providing ‘quiet’ and ‘peace’that was valued as ‘healthy’ and ‘right’ for a person. OneMinnesotan became aware of these qualities once they werelost to her:

‘The land provides a sound buffer. Since the blowdown,you can hear what’s being said at the neighbors’houses.’(Minnesota)

As much as vegetation on the landscape provided a soundbarrier, more respondents emphasized the sense of seclusiontrees provided. Some defined their private space as beingshielded from neighbors with vegetation; others found pri-vacy in being off the road or away from any nearby neighbors.Trees in the landscape gave these respondents a sense thatthey were alone, unobserved by others. Many mentioned thatprivacy was central to the value this home had for them as

compared to the previous homes they owned in other towns,the suburbs, or the city:

‘It is a place to come and hide.’ (Minnesota)

‘I have two acres in woods between me and my neighbor,so I don’t see him. It is bad to see neighbors.’ (Florida)

Finally, reflecting on their use of the surroundinglandscape, respondents in Florida and Minnesota men-tioned similar recreational activities—entertaining outdoors,hiking/walking, riding all terrain vehicles, gardening, andrelaxing. The ecosystem, climate, and public lands availablefor respondent use best explain the differences in recreationaluses between the two states. Most Minnesota homes were sur-rounded by National Forest or Wilderness areas; therefore,residents used their land and the public lands for snowshoe-ing, skiing, berry picking, and hunting. In Florida, wheremuch of the nearby forest was on undeveloped privatelyowned land, respondents built pools, firing ranges, trails,horseshoe pits, and soccer fields to further enjoy their land.

Perceptions of fire risk

When evaluating wildfire preparedness, respondents basedtheir decisions on their landscape values, but what theydecided to do was partially influenced by their knowledgeabout wildfire and perception of fire risk. When asked, ‘Doyou believe you are at risk of wildfire in your area/region?;—in your home/immediate property? Why?’, a large majority ofrespondents in both states believed the surrounding area wasat risk for wildfire and slightly fewer believed their home wasat risk. Overall, the respondents believed they were at risk.

In open-ended questions, about why they were at risk,respondents in both states considered a variety of factors asthey assessed their risk for wildfire. Environmental factors,such as fire behavior, forest ecosystem, and climate, wereused by respondents to justify a reduced or increased riskthat they cannot do much about:

‘It depends on what kind of fire came through. If youhad a big fire like they have out west right now, emberscan land on the house, even if there are no trees around.’(Minnesota)

‘Pine trees topple too easily in hurricane winds, and theyburn quickly. That’s why we’ve cleared pines from nearthe house.’ (Florida)

The majority of respondents in both states used past per-sonal experiences or recent personal fire prevention actionsto explain their risk assessment. A few respondents pointedto the activities of others or the home’s location in relation tomajor infrastructure as important factors that influence theirpersonal risk:

‘I remember the thick, black, choking smoke for monthsduring the summer.’ (Florida)

420 K. C. Nelson et al.

Table 1. Wildfire protection measures perceived as effective or highly effective by Florida and Minnesotarespondents, USA 2002

Based on a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = not effective to 5 = highly effective

‘How effective do you think the following wildfire protection Florida, N = 43 Minnesota, N = 37measures are for protecting your home and investment (%) (%)from most wildfires?’

Fire insurance 77 94Fire retardant building materials 82 68Foam 58 35Sprinkler systems 37 49Width of access road 65 65Clearing vegetation near the home 65 54Clearing vegetation in undeveloped land 51 38

Table 2. Respondent reported actions taken for wildfire protection in Florida andMinnesota, USA 2002

‘Have you taken actions to protect your house Florida, N = 43 Minnesota, N = 36from wildfire? Check all that apply’ (%) (%)

Invested in fire retardant building materials 28 22Installed chimney spark arrester 21 31Installed a water source 47 53Invested in a sprinkler system 12 33Widened the road leading to the house 33 25Reducing vegetation near the home 70 69Reducing vegetation far from the house 38 39

‘And there are a lot of campers going out. I know theyrequire them to watch a video, but that doesn’t meanthey won’t start a fire.’ (Minnesota)

Overall, a complex set of factors influenced respondents’assessment of personal risk and combined with their land-scape preferences to influence their actions. In Florida andMinnesota, it was not a simple question of risk denial because,in unprompted, open-ended questions, they assessed theirrelative risk. It was not a complete ignorance about the com-plexity of fire risk because all the respondents mentionednumerous factors that might influence their particular risk;the respondents in this study recognized some component ofthe risk of wildfire.

Perception of the effectiveness of home protectionmeasures

When Florida and Minnesota respondents evaluated theirrelative risk of wildfire, they considered a variety of wild-fire protection measures. How effective they believed thesemeasures would be for reducing their risk of wildfire wasone influence on their willingness to take action (Table 1).The survey revealed that, in Florida, more than 50% of therespondents felt most of the suggested options were effec-tive or highly effective in reducing their wildfire risk. Theyhad the greatest confidence in fire-retardant building mate-rials to save a structure when a fire does come through,

and insurance to replace a structure when the fire cannot besuppressed.

In Minnesota most respondents perceived they had somedegree of control over wildfire impact, but a few thoughtwildfire was inevitable and there was very little a personcould do. Overall, most of respondents—seasonal and per-manent alike—believed the most effective measures wouldbe fire-retardant building materials to prevent ignition fromground fires or embers, a good access road to save liveswhen fire came near, and good insurance to replace theirhome if fire took a structure. A few respondents along theGunflint Trail commented that sprinkler systems could beeffective because there was easily accessible lake water andmore people knew about them because a local business hadpromoted the technology.

More than half of the respondents in both states believedclearing vegetation near the house could be an effectiveor highly effective wildfire protection measure. There wereothers who thought clearing vegetation was only effectiveunder certain circumstances depending on fire intensity,ecosystem type, and climatic conditions.

Actions taken to prevent wildfire damage

Documenting respondent-reported behaviors regarding firepreparedness can provide insight into how they evaluatetheir risk, the options for wildfire protection, and their pre-ferred vegetation management. In Florida and Minnesota,

Homeowner assessment of defensible space, Minnesota and Florida 421

respondents emphasized two fire prevention actions fortheir homes—vegetation reduction around their house andinstalling water sources (Table 2). In both states the majorityof respondents reported they had reduced some of the vegeta-tion near their homes. A few respondents cleared vegetationbeyond 9 m, in several cases 500 m. The blowdown in Min-nesota increased the fuel load and served to increase wildfireawareness. Many respondents were actively, clearing downedtrees and brush from around their houses to clean up the areaand reduce their risk of potential wildfire (69%). In northcentral Florida, where major wildland fires have occurredannually for several years, most respondents had been veryactive in vegetation reduction around their homes (70%):

‘I’ve taken out all the dead trees from the spruce bud-worm and cleared all trees down by the blowdown. Ikeep the immediate area around the house cleared ofdebris.’ (Minnesota)

‘It is just sloppy to have trees next to your house. That’snot common sense.’ (Florida)

Approximately half of the respondents in both states hada water source for fire fighting on the chance that their homewas threatened. In Florida, one neighborhood was full ofponds, the result of obtaining fill to make the roads. Sev-eral respondents recognized these ponds were a source ofwater for fire suppression. In neighborhoods where landscap-ing was important, most homes had an irrigation system thatcould be used to keep groundcover alive. In Minnesota, sev-eral respondents along the Gunflint Trail not only thoughtthat sprinkler systems were effective but also installed themon their roofs and in their yards:

‘We’ve reduced our risk by clearing most of the forestand putting in gardens. We installed an irrigation systemand have a pump at the pond and a generator, but that’sprimarily for the gardens, not for fire.’ (Florida)

Respondents reported other wildfire prevention actionsbut less than one-third of the respondents had widened theirdriveway, installed chimney spark arresters, or invested infire-retardant building materials. On one hand, this may nothave impacted their preparedness, as Florida respondents maynot have had chimneys and new residents may already havehad wide driveways. On the other hand, many Minnesotahomes were tucked away at the end of narrow ‘paths’ thatwere still not accessible for fire equipment. In addition, fewrespondents in either state had invested in fire-retardant build-ing materials, although respondents ranked them as the mosteffective solution.

Fuel treatment on undeveloped land nearby

People who live in neighborhoods that border undevelopedland can be at great risk of wildland fire, and may express sup-portive or unsupportive opinions about the land management

strategies to reduce that risk. In this study Florida, respon-dents distinguished between three types of undeveloped land:natural conservation lands under State management, pineplantations under industrial management, and undevelopedprivate property lots in subdivisions. In Minnesota, nearlyall the participants mentioned undeveloped lands under fed-eral ownership in the Superior National Forest and BoundaryWaters Canoe Area Wilderness. They also mentioned privatelands nearby and in Canada, both public and private.

After discussing the undeveloped land near their homes,respondents were asked if they ‘would feel more or less com-fortable if managers used (fuel treatment type) to reduce thevegetation on this undeveloped land’. Respondent commentsabout specific management practices to reduce wildfire riskbrought out a clear differentiation between prescribed burn-ing, thinning, and herbicide use as treatments for vegetationreduction. Prior to the interviewing period, prescribed burnshad recently been conducted in both states or respondents hadbeen notified that burns were being planned for the next sea-son. Most respondents were very comfortable with prescribedburning as a forest management tool to reduce wildfire risk.The level of support increased by including those respondentswho gave qualified support for prescribed burns that are donewell. Overall, respondents in both states supported prescribedburns if they were well done:

‘Controlled burning is a risk you have to take. Like somepeople said, we probably shouldn’t be here in the firstplace.’ (Minnesota)

‘Prescribed fires—I’m not against them if they aremanaged.’ (Florida)

Many others expressed confidence in the ability of thosecarrying out the prescribed burns. Especially in small com-munities, several respondents personally knew many localfire professionals:

‘Things can go wrong, but I feel really confident theyknow what they’re doing. I personally know a lot of thepeople doing the burning, and that helps.’ (Minnesota)

‘I’ve been where they’ve done controlled burns and thehouses are still standing. Those guys did a fantastic job.’(Florida)

In response to the closed-ended question, ‘How confi-dent are you that prescribed fires can be controlled?’ (1 = noconfidence, 3 = moderately confident, 5 = highly confident),86% of the Minnesotan respondents and 85% of the Floridarespondents were moderately to highly confident. Respond-ing to the question, ‘How effective is prescribed fire inreducing wildfire risk?’, 91% of Minnesotans and 96% ofFloridian respondents thought it was moderately to veryeffective.

Of the respondents who were less comfortable withprescribed burning, responses included nervousness about

422 K. C. Nelson et al.

burning too close to homes and concern about it getting outof control. There were several references to wildfires in thewestern USA.The primary concern was that firefighters knowwhat they are doing (e.g. time of day, wind direction):

‘For prescribed fire, it really depends on who is doingthem. I would appreciate having a lot more burns if Iwere confident in who was conducting them and if itwere limited to specific areas.’ (Florida)

‘It makes me really nervous, especially because ofwhat happened out west. Humans can make mistakes.’(Minnesota)

There were several respondents who were clearly againstprescribed burning. Some critiques were about the scale ofproposed burning; others lacked confidence in the ability tokeep prescribed burns under control. Other concerns voicedby these respondents included a fear for wildlife or fear thatprescribed fires would become wildfires resulting in liabilityproblems:

‘With the track record of the Forest Service in control-ling prescribed burns, the risk of the large broadcastburns—they’re so large, they’re essentially napalmingthe area—getting out of control is the biggest firedanger.’ (Minnesota)

‘I could live with prescribed fire on these lands nearhere, but I would worry about the wildlife. I know thereare a lot of animals that live in the underbrush. I guessit would depend on the type of land and its purpose.’(Florida)

Another fuel treatment option used in both states is thin-ning or mechanical removal of vegetation on undevelopedlands. More than half of respondents in both states werecomfortable with some level of thinning or logging:

‘I would be OK with thinning as long as they thinnedonly undergrowth and not trees.’ (Florida)

‘Before the blowdown, we were very much against log-ging. Now we’re very much in favor of it. We’ve seenthe results. That’s a preferred way of rejuvenating theforest.’ (Minnesota)

Reasons participants opposed thinning ranged from feel-ings that the forest should remain natural to beliefs that itwould not have an impact on wildfire risk. In some casesrespondents appeared to be misinformed about the thin-ning techniques. A few people assumed thinning would beclear-cut in large blocks. Overall there were a variety of opin-ions about the effectiveness of different thinning techniquesdepending on how they are conducted.

‘It’s just an excuse to open up more forest to logging.The loggers don’t follow the rules and regulations.’(Minnesota)

‘If they do thinning by hand with a machete, some ofit will come back. If they use a backhoe, it’ll eliminatethe vegetation. But it doesn’t matter, it won’t stop a fire.’(Florida)

Finally, in Florida herbicides have been used for vegeta-tion management, so these respondents were asked about thisparticular technique. Distinct from previous vegetation treat-ments, very few approved of herbicide use. More than halfof the respondents found herbicides completely unacceptablefor vegetation reduction on nearby lands. Many worried aboutgroundwater contamination and the risk to wildlife and otherinhabitants:

‘Herbicides are completely unacceptable. I’d rather seehouses burn.’ (Florida)

‘Herbicides would be OK on the [adjacent] lot as longas they were not harmful chemicals.’ (Florida)

Discussion

Overall, the Minnesota and Florida respondents shared moredemographic characteristics than we assumed they wouldin the beginning of the study. We thought we might findthe stereotypical ‘long-term, hardy Minnesotan resident’ v.the ‘snow-bird, new Floridian resident’ but there were nodistinct demographic types. Some bias in findings may beattributed to a slightly more educated, more retirement-agegroup in Minnesota but these do not appear to influence fireperceptions in a meaningful way.

Despite differences in ecosystems and communities, theresidents sampled from Minnesota and Florida share someimportant perceptions about their immediate landscape andwildfire. The most important landscape attributes for theseresidents were ‘naturalness’, wildlife, and privacy. Many lookupon the trees near their home with spiritual reverence or asan extension of their private space, emphasizing their impor-tance by suggesting that the site would be unlivable after afire:

‘If a fire burns this forest, then I hope it burns myhouse down, because I don’t want to live here anymore.’(Florida)

Floridian respondents expressed more support for builtand managed uses of their land than their counterparts inMinnesota because their land was more often a working land-scape, perhaps with horse pastures or large vegetable gardens.This may be the result of Florida’s younger sample, morefull-time residents, more varied forest cover, or closer prox-imity to cities. In addition, even though respondents in bothstates valued ‘naturalness’, it was ecosystem specific for eachstate. Respondents envisioned ‘naturalness’ from their socio-cultural frame in relation to distinct forest types. Natural inFlorida’s pine flatwoods was distinct from natural in Min-nesota’s boreal forest, but both groups expressed their desirefor limited human intervention or management as the way

Homeowner assessment of defensible space, Minnesota and Florida 423

to keep things ‘natural’. As managers work with respondentsto promote defensible space they need to grapple with thisvery important valuing and, as Kellert (1996) expressed, workwith a respondent’s desire for ‘satisfactory expression’ and‘identity’ in their landscape management.

Everyone in our study had a perception concerning theirrisk of wildfire and many appeared to understand relation-ships among the variables that influenced their relative risk.In Florida, this understanding often related to experiencewith the 1988 wildfires. Unlike some respondents in otherstudies who discounted the risk of wildfire (Gardner et al.1987), respondents in both states remembered past wild-fires and combined that lesson with other factors. Perhaps asCortner et al. (1990) found, homeowners are becoming moresophisticated in their understanding of wildfire risk.

Overall, the majority of respondents in this study werenot so overwhelmed by the power of a wildfire that theybelieved it ‘was out of their hands’, as some respondentsin a Michigan study did (Winter and Fried 2000). Certainlyrespondents had a healthy respect for the damage a wildfirecan do and most recognized that, despite all their efforts,they may still lose their home to wildfire. The majority inboth states thought some form of wildfire preparedness waspossible, but they varied in which techniques they thoughtwere effective (Table 1). Insurance and fire-retardant build-ing materials were regarded as effective by the majorityof respondents. Minnesotans were more positively disposedto using water-based technology. Floridians had a higheropinion of the efficacy of fire-retardant building materialsand foam. Understanding why these differences existed isbeyond the scope of this study; as the respondents discussedthe efficacy of various techniques they mentioned local firebehavior, climate, natural resource base, and media coverage,as support for their evaluation.

As other scholars found (Hodgson 1995; Winter and Fried2000), respondents who acted to reduce their wildfire riskwere most likely to have reduced vegetation near their home(Table 2). The study respondents mentioned that ‘firefighterssaid this vegetation was too close’ or had enough experi-ence with fire to have a common sense approach to homeprotection. They mentioned that they had a large enoughparcel of land to enjoy what they valued: some defensiblespace, wildlife habitat, and vegetation screens. Many respon-dents perceived other benefits from the open space aroundtheir home, such as flower gardens, ball games, or crimeprevention.

Importantly, there were highly educated respondents whoexperienced recent fires but were not willing to alter the veg-etation around their home. They were aware of their risk, butdid not believe their personal risk was high, or they valuedother aspects of their vegetation more than personal safety into the event of a wildfire. It is entirely possible that some ofthese respondents had a misperception of the extent of recom-mended vegetation reduction. Some may have been unaware

that they could still maintain their privacy and wildlife habitatif they took some initial steps toward defensible space. Theserespondents did not want to modify the natural landscape toprotect their home; rather, they believed that if the fire cameit should take their home as well as the trees. Given that asmall number of respondents in this study believe this, it islikely some portion of the large population will have theseopinions.

As these respondents evaluated wildfire preparedness ontheir own landscape they have simultaneously developedopinions about fuel treatments on nearby private and publiclands. Past studies have mixed results regarding respondentsupport for prescribed burning (Taylor and Daniel 1984;Winter and Fried 2000; Loomis et al. 2001; Winter et al.2002). In our study of respondents who live near forestedareas, a strong majority in both states were supportive ofprescribed burning for fuel reduction when it was well doneby qualified professionals. Most thought this had been thecase in their experience but were able to report instancesin other states when a prescribed burn had escaped, result-ing in unnecessary loss. Certainly acceptance of well doneprescribed burning can shift in the general public opinionand in these wildland–urban interface respondent opinions.Respondents mentioned that this current support is basedon familiarity with competent managers and/or successfulprescribed fires. As soon as there are several bad examples,respondent perceptions may change.

Finally, respondents in this study had limited experi-ence with forest thinning and herbicide use for vegetationmanagement on public lands. A majority in both states sup-ported thinning as a management option but, unlike Michiganresidents in other studies (Winter and Fried 2000), sev-eral Minnesotans were resistant to thinning. More recentMichigan studies have also documented negative attitudestoward thinning (Vogt et al. 2003). The Minnesota respon-dents grounded their opinions in a long-standing conflict overwilderness designation and managed National Forest in thearea. These individuals thought thinning would open up thearea to more logging and they supported minimal interventiontechniques. Compared to thinning, this study offers limitedinsights about herbicide treatments because they have beenused only in Florida. As in agricultural debates, herbicidetreatments were controversial: respondents overwhelminglyrejected their use.

Conclusions

Managers face a significant challenge when talking to inter-face homeowners because they appear to have differingvalues and varying levels of understanding about the bestactions to take for wildfire preparedness. A homeowner’schoice to reduce their risk of wildfire by using defensiblespace and other fire prevention measures is influenced bymany factors. This study indicates that, despite the differ-ences in ecosystem and fuel types, residents in Minnesota

424 K. C. Nelson et al.

and Florida were valuing their forested landscape basedon similar categories—recreation, wildlife, privacy, seclu-sion. It supports findings in the literature that argue forcommon patterns that we can identify among homeownersacross regions. Though in-depth qualitative interviews, wedeveloped a contextually based understanding of how therespondents organized their perceptions and actions relatedto wildfire preparedness.

The study results suggest that, as managers work withhomeowners in forested ecosystems, their interactions canbe improved by acknowledging the complexity of wildfirerisk without minimizing the need to act. The study find-ings suggest managers and educators may want to changethe messages they use with homeowners. When encourag-ing homeowners to reduce vegetation it would be helpfulto demonstrate how cherished landscape values can be sup-ported with defensible space techniques. Open space can beincorporated in the concept of ‘natural’ and may provide bet-ter wildlife viewing opportunities. Individuals are likely tohave specific questions about which plants to retain and howto dispose of brush, making communication activities that arelocally targeted and personally relevant more effective.

In general, this study implies that what may increase home-owner understanding and change behavior is not a simple,universal reminder of risk and to create defensible space.It is not that they do not know about wildfire risk or lackknowledge of options for reducing their risk. Rather, our find-ings suggest that some homeowners lack a specific piece ofinformation or have misconstrued facts. They might require amore sophisticated knowledge of fire behavior or ecosystemchange to make assessments of their property and risk. Futureeducational efforts should contribute to a homeowner’s abil-ity to analyse and solve a problem rather than offer broadalerts that there is a problem.

Our results also support more recent studies that find ageneral support for well done prescribed burns in appropriateecosystems, despite the apparently vocal minority that fearsprescribed fire. And although there is broad agreement thatdefensible space is useful, there may always be homeownerswho will not reduce vegetation near their home in order toimprove wildfire preparedness for themselves, or their com-munity. Further studies will be necessary to understand howpervasive this homeowner behavior is in particular regions,but some respondents in our study held strong opinions thatvegetation removal was not acceptable for a variety of rea-sons. The implication is that managers will have to plan forpatchy vegetation management responses in a public/privateland mosaic. Regional fuel treatment strategies will have torespect, or at least acknowledge, that some homeowners willnever agree with their assessment of risk or decision abouthow to mitigate that risk. At a minimum, managers willhave to be aware of, map, and plan for high fuel loads onsome private lands. Some argue that mandatory vegetationreduction regulations or insurance requirements could force

homeowners to manage their land for wildfire but some of ourresponses indicate these would not be sufficient measures.

Finally, how far can we take the findings from this study?They may be most applicable to homeowners in Eastern orMidwestern fire-prone forest systems, rather than Westernsystems. Some areas of the West have experienced extremedrought, and land development patterns are different thanin Minnesota or Florida. Residents of both Minnesota andFlorida, however, experience fire risk. In this context andbecause their responses were so similar, this study providessome suggestions for the variety of reactions managers mayexpect to find in a population of interface dwellers. Wildfire isa component of many forested ecosystems across the USA. Itis imperative that we extend our understanding of its dynamicwith human systems in order to reduce unnecessary loss in lifeand property and to support a sustainable forest ecosysteminto the future.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank John Dwyer, Paul Gobster, SarahMcCaffrey, Herbert Schroeder and Susan Stewart of the USForest Service, North Central Research Station in Evanston,Illinois and Pam Jakes of the North Central Research Sta-tion in St Paul, Minnesota for their insightful questionsand support. We recognize Larry Korhnak, Jane Inouye,Janice Easton, Cotton Randall, Pam Archer, and Mark Myersfor providing invaluable assistance with photographs, datacollection, identifying communities, and data organization.Special thanks to the reviewers for their thoughtful com-ments to improve earlier drafts of the paper. This researchwas funded in part by the US Forest Service North CentralResearch Station, Minnesota Experiment Station #MIN-42–033, FloridaAgricultural Research Station and Journal SeriesNo. R–09747.

References

Ajzen I (1991)The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes 50, 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Cardille J, Ventura S, Turner M (2001) Environmental and social fac-tors influencing wildfires in the upper Midwest, United States.Ecological Applications 11, 111–127.

Cohen JD (2000) Preventing disaster: home ignitability in the wildland–urban interface. Journal of Forestry 98, 15–21.

Cohen J, Saveland J (1997) Structure ignition assessment can helpreduce fire damages in the W-UI. Fire Management Notes 57,19–23.

Cortner HJ, Gardner PD, Taylor JG (1990) Fire hazards at the urban–wildland interface: what the public expects. Environmental Manage-ment 13, 57–62.

Davis JB (1990) The wildland–urban interface: paradise or battle-ground? Journal of Forestry 88, 26–31.

Frissell SS (1973) The importance of fire as a natural ecological factorin Itasca State Park, Minnesota. Quaternary Research 3, 397–407.

Gardner PD, Cortner HJ, Widaman K (1987) The risk perceptions andpolicy response toward wildland fire hazards by urban home-owners.

Homeowner assessment of defensible space, Minnesota and Florida 425

Landscape and Urban Planning 14, 163–172. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(87)90021-1

Heinselman M (1973) Fire in the virgin forests of the Boundary WatersCanoe Area, Minnesota. Quaternary Research 3, 329–382.

Heinselman M (1996) ‘The Boundary Waters Wilderness Ecosystem.’(University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis)

Hodgson RW (1995) ‘Strategies for and barriers to public adoption offire safe behavior.’ USDA Forest Service Report. pp. 93–98.

Jacobson SK, Monroe MC, Marynowski S (2001) Fire at the wild-land urban interface: the influence of experience and mass mediaon public knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. WildlifeSociety Bulletin 29, 929–937.

Kellert SR (1996) ‘The value of life.’ (Island Press: Washington, DC)Koehler JT (1991) ‘The use of prescribed burning as a wild-

fire prevention tool.’ National Fire Academy Report. (FloridaDivision of Forestry: Orlando, FL) Available at http://flame.fl-dof.com/env/koehler.html [Verified 10 June 2004]

Lavin MJ (1997) Managing fire risk to people, structures, and theenvironment. Fire Management Notes 57, 4–6.

Lichtman P (1998) The politics of wildfire: lessons from Yellowstone.Journal of Forestry 96, 4–9.

Loomis JB, Bair LS, Gonzalez-Caban A (2001) Prescribed fire and pub-lic support: knowledge gained, attitudes changed in Florida. Journalof Forestry 99, 18–22.

Machlis GE, Kaplan AB, Tuler SP, Bagby KA, McKendry JE (2002)‘Burning questions: a social science research plan for federalwildland fire management.’ Report to the National Wildfire Coordi-nating Group. (College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho:Moscow, ID)

Macie EA, Hermansen LA (Eds) (2002) ‘Human influences on for-est ecosystems: the southern wildland–urban interface assessment.’USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station General TechnicalReport SNRS-55. (Asheville, NC)

http://www.publish.csiro.au/journals/ijwf

Monroe M, Jacobson S, Marynowski S (1999) ‘Needs assessmentreport: Awareness and attitudes about fire in Florida.’ Report tothe Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Availableat www.sfrc.ufl.edu/Extension/needsurv.htm [Verified 10 January2004]

Pyne S (1995) ‘World fire: the culture of fire on earth.’ (University ofWashington Press: Seattle)

Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) ‘Basics of qualitative research: groundedtheory procedures and techniques.’ (Sage Publications: London)

Taylor JG, Daniel TC (1984) Prescribed fire: public education andperception. Journal of Forestry 82, 361–365.

US Forest Service (2001) ‘Firewise communities workshop participantbooklet.’ Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Assessment Methodology.(U.S. Forest Service: Washington, DC)

Vining J, Daniel TC, Schroeder HW (1984) Predicting scenic valuesin forested residential landscapes. Journal of Leisure Research 16,124–135.

Vogt C, Winter GJ, Fried JS (2003) Antecedents to attitudes towardprescribed burning, mechanical thinning, and defensible space fuelreduction techniques. In ‘People and wildfire. Proceedings from the9th International Symposium on Society and Resource Manage-ment’. (Ed. Pam Jakes) pp. 74–83. (North Central Research Station:St Paul, MN)

Winter G, Fried JS (2000) Homeowner perspectives on fire haz-ard, responsibility, and management strategies at the wildland–urban interface. Society & Natural Resources 13, 33–49.doi:10.1080/089419200279225

Winter GJ,Vogt C, Fried JS (2002) Fuel treatments at the wildland–urbaninterface, common concerns in diverse regions. Journal of Forestry100, 15–21.