Understanding the acceptability of fuel management strategies used to reduce wildfire risk in Australia

Abstract

Wildfires commonly cause social, economic and environmental impacts in Australia; however, fuel management to reduce wildfire risk often attracts controversy. This thesis examines acceptability of managing fuel in Australia, the extent to which what people think and how they structure their thoughts about fuel management predicts acceptability, and what this means for communication about fuel management. Acceptability of three fuel management strategies (prescribed burning, mechanical thinning and livestock grazing) was explored through 24 qualitative interviews and a survey of 488 residents living in and around the Australian Capital Territory; and an Australia-wide survey of 4390 residents. My first question asked how acceptable is the use of different fuel management strategies in Australia? With little published on acceptability of fuel management in Australia, this was an essential precursor to exploring factors predicting acceptability. While my findings show 66% or more support use of all three strategies, most did not think complexly about fuel management. These views are therefore susceptible to change and may lack long-term stability. My second question asked to what extent do commonly theorised factors influence acceptability of different fuel management strategies in Australia? Consistent with studies in other regions, acceptability was higher for people who trusted those managing fuel, who had high self-rated knowledge about fuel management, and who felt fuel management had more positive than negative impacts. Past experiences of wildfire, perceptions of wildfire risk, length of time since experiencing a wildfire, and socio-demographic factors were not strong predictors. I drew on Integrative Complexity Theory and other information processing theories to examine my third question: how is acceptability influenced by the way people structure their thinking about fuel management? Lower integrative complexity (IC) predicted more extreme attitudes (whether for or against fuel management), while higher IC predicted more moderate, stable attitudes, which is ideal in planning and implementing long-term strategies like fuel management. People had higher IC for prescribed burning than grazing or mechanical thinning, likely reflecting higher familiarity with this common practice, and greater exposure to complex information about its use. To better understand the distribution of IC, I developed a modified scoring method that I argue is likely to better reflect true complexity of thinking, and shows that IC about fuel management is often low. My fourth question asked what are the implications of better understanding acceptability for communication? My findings suggest a need to rethink communication objectives: long-term support for fuel management may be better achieved by increasing IC about fuel management, than by seeking support using simple messaging, as more complex thinking is associated with more stable attitudes. The key area to address in Australia to achieve long-term stable support is communicating about benefits and costs of fuel management. This differs to the common focus on communicating about wildfire risk to build support for fuel management. My findings suggest that in Australia awareness of risk is high irrespective of personal experiences with wildfire. Communication about risk is unlikely to successfully build IC or support for fuel management, while building understanding about actions intended to address risks can. Ideally, communication should be targeted to match current levels of IC to support more effective information processing, and to open avenues for gradually increasing IC. Further research is needed to test these recommendations, particularly whether designing communication that targets both what and how people think is effective in building more stable, long-term support for fuel management based on a more complex understanding of the issues. Show more