ArticleBMC public health2025
Perceived wildfire risk and past experiences with wildfire smoke influence public support for prescribed burning in the western conterminous United States.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrescribed burning is an important fuel management tool to prevent severe wildfires. There is a pressing need to increase its application to reduce dry fuels in the western United States, a region that has experienced many damaging wildfires. Public support for this practice is tempered by concern around smoke impacts and escape risks. This study aims to understand how recent experiences with wildfire smoke and perceived risk of smoke events affect public support for prescribed burning.
methodsData were from the May 2023 Household Emergency Preparedness Survey, an online panel survey of 1,727 adults in 12 western conterminous states, applying survey weights to reflect the underlying population demographics. In weighted logistic regression models, we evaluated associations between predictor variables (past experiences with smoke, wildfire risk perception) and support for prescribed burns in general or near a respondent's neighborhood, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, gender, education, household income, and wildland urban interface status. Mediation models were used to assess whether perceived risk of smoke exposure mediates the relationship between recent smoke experience and support for prescribed burning.
resultsApproximately two-thirds of the population supported prescribed burning in general, and more than half supported prescribed burning near their neighborhood. 44% reported experiencing a smoke event in the past 3 years, which increased the odds of support for prescribed burning in general (OR = 2.03, 95%CI 1.51-2.74) and near their neighborhood (OR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.20-2.09). High perceived risk of future smoke impacts was associated with support for prescribed burns in general (adjusted OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.15-2.39) and near their residence (adjusted OR = 1.72, 95%CI = 1.23-2.39). Although only trending towards significance, perceived future risk mediated 16.9% (p = 0.066) of the association between recent smoke experience and support for prescribed burning nearby. Among those who experienced recent smoke events, reporting high degrees of overall smoke impacts or outdoor air quality impacts were positively associated with support for prescribed burns.
conclusionsRecent experience with wildfire smoke and perceived future risk are strongly associated with support for prescribed burns. Educational campaigns can apply these findings to improve public support toward prescribed fire activities and funding to reduce wildfire risks and protect public health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.