Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29572559›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental management2018

An Integrative Review of Empirical Research on Perceptions and Behaviors Related to Prescribed Burning and Wildfire in the United States.

Lauren Nicole Dupéy, Jordan W Smith

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental management, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lauren Nicole DupéyDepartment of Environment and Society, Utah State University, 5215 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT, 84322-5215, USA.
Jordan W SmithDepartment of Environment and Society, Utah State University, 5215 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT, 84322-5215, USA. jordan.smith@usu.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7036-4887

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social science research from a variety of disciplines has generated a collective understanding of how individuals prepare for, and respond to, the risks associated with prescribed burning and wildfire. We provide a systematic compilation, review, and quantification of dominant trends in this literature by collecting all empirical research conducted within the U.S. that has addressed perceptions and behaviors surrounding various aspects of prescribed burning and wildfire. We reviewed and quantified this literature using four thematic categories covering: (1) the theory and methods that have been used in previous research; (2) the psychosocial aspects of prescribed burning and wildfire that have been studied; (3) the biophysical characteristics of the fires which have been studied; and (4) the types of fire and management approaches that have been examined. Our integrative review builds on previous literature reviews on the subject by offering new insight on the dominant trends, underutilized approaches, and under-studied topics within each thematic category. For example, we found that a select set of theories (e.g., Protection Motivation Theory, Attribution Theory, etc.) and approaches (e.g., mixed-methods) have only been used sparingly in previous research, even though these theories and approaches can produce insightful results that can readily be implemented by fire-management professionals and decision makers. By identifying trends and gaps in the literature across the thematic categories, we were able to answer four questions that address how future research can make the greatest contribution to our understanding of perceptions and behaviors related to prescribed burning and wildfire.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorFiresWildfiresBiophysicsConservation of Natural ResourcesEmpirical ResearchForestryHumansRisk AssessmentSociological FactorsUnited StatesCollaborative managementIntegrative reviewMitigation behaviorsMixed-methodsRisk perceptionsSocial theory

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.