Landowner Results

Regional Comparison of Prescribed Fire Perceptions

Landowner perceptions of prescribed fire were remarkably consistent across Texas and Oklahoma. When examining current attitudes toward prescribed fire on a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from “very negative” to “very positive”), response distributions between the two states showed minimal variation (Figure 1). While Texas respondents exhibited slightly more negative responses compared to Oklahoma landowners, these differences were not statistically significant and did not warrant separate state-level analyses. Similarly, when respondents were asked about changes in their attitudes toward prescribed fire over time (measured on a seven-point scale from “much more negative” to “much more positive”), patterns were nearly identical across states (Figure 2). Given this regional consistency, subsequent analyses pooled data from both states to examine the factors shaping prescribed fire attitudes across the southern Great Plains.

Figure 1: Current perceptions of prescribed fire by state (Texas and Oklahoma).

Figure 2: Changes in attitude toward prescribed fire by state (Texas and Oklahoma).

Respondent Characteristics

Fire Experience and Involvement

Survey respondents demonstrated varying levels of direct engagement with prescribed fire and wildfire (Table 1). The majority of landowners reported participation in prescribed fire activities, reflecting the prevalence of this management practice in the region. Membership in prescribed burn associations was also documented among respondents. A substantial proportion of landowners indicated they had received assistance with prescribed fire planning. First-hand experience with wildfire was common among respondents.

Perceptions of Prescribed Fire Utility

Respondents evaluated the usefulness of prescribed fire for wildfire mitigation across a five-point scale ranging from “not useful” to “always useful” (Table 2). The distribution of responses revealed considerable variation in how landowners perceived prescribed fire as a tool for managing wildfire risk.

Demographics and Land Use Motivations

The demographic composition of survey respondents (Table 3) provided context for interpreting attitudes and management decisions related to prescribed fire. Landowners reported diverse motivations for land ownership and management (Table 4), including crop production, livestock operations, wildlife management, investment purposes, and recreation.

Table 1. Fire Experience and Involvement

Category	Response	n
Participation in Prescribed Fire	No	240
	Yes	101
Burn Association Membership	No	293
	Yes	17
Received Assistance with RX Fire	No	290
	Yes	49
First-hand Experience with Wildfire	No	138
	Yes	186

Table 2. Prescribed Fire Perceptions

Category	Response	n
RX Fire Usefulness for Wildfire	Always useful	83
	Generally useful	101
	Not useful	18
	Occasionally useful	59
	Rarely useful	37
	Unsure	34

Table 3. Respondent Demographics

Category	Response	n
Gender	Female	65
	Male	274

Table 4. Land Use Motivations

Category	Response	n
Crop Production	No	261
	Yes	81
Livestock	No	84
	Yes	258
Wildlife	No	205
	Yes	137
Investment	No	274
	Yes	68
Recreation	No	294
	Yes	48

Model Diagnostics: Multicollinearity Assessment

Prior to model fitting, variance inflation factors (VIF) were calculated to assess multicollinearity among predictor variables. The variable “usefulness for forage improvement” exhibited problematic VIF values (6.2 in Model 1 and 7.1 in Model 2) and inflated VIF values of other predictors when included in the models. Consequently, this variable was removed from both ordinal regression models. After removal, all remaining predictors showed VIF values below 5, indicating acceptable levels of collinearity (Tables 5-6).

Table 5: Variance Inflation Factors - Model 1 (Perception of Prescribed Fire)

Note: VIF > 10 indicates high collinearity; VIF > 5 indicates moderate collinearity

Variable	VIF	Collinearity Status
sb19a	3.36	Low
sb19b	3.31	Low
sb19c	2.26	Low
sb19d	2.02	Low
as.numeric(sa)	1.87	Low
sd40	1.87	Low
sa4	1.71	Low
sb16a	1.70	Low
sd39	1.69	Low
sb16c	1.67	Low
sb18b	1.53	Low
sd37b	1.34	Low
sd37c	1.30	Low
sd37e	1.30	Low
sa7	1.27	Low
sb10	1.26	Low
sd34	1.23	Low
sd37d	1.22	Low
sd37a	1.17	Low
sd36	1.15	Low
sd30	1.13	Low

Table 6: Variance Inflation Factors - Model 2 (Change in Perception)

Note: VIF > 10 indicates high collinearity; VIF > 5 indicates moderate collinearity

Variable	VIF	Collinearity Status
sb17c	2.78	Low
sb17b	2.73	Low
sb19b	2.72	Low
sb19a	2.69	Low
sb17a	2.66	Low
sb19d	2.10	Low
sb19c	2.08	Low
sb16c	2.02	Low
sb16a	1.95	Low
sb17d	1.87	Low
sd40	1.75	Low
sd39	1.73	Low
sb19e	1.72	Low
sa	1.54	Low
sd37b	1.40	Low
sd37c	1.31	Low
sd37e	1.30	Low
sa7	1.28	Low
as.numeric(sb15)	1.26	Low
sd37d	1.23	Low
sd37a	1.20	Low
sb10	1.17	Low
sd30	1.17	Low
sd31	1.16	Low
sd36	1.16	Low

Factors Influencing Current Perceptions of Prescribed Fire

A proportional odds logistic regression model examined factors associated with landowner perceptions of prescribed fire (Table 7, Figure 3).

Risk Perceptions

Concerns about the likelihood of damage to others’ property were the strongest negative predictor of prescribed fire attitudes (\(\beta\) = 0.18, z = -4.13, p < 0.001), suggesting that perceived risks to neighboring properties substantially influence overall evaluations of the practice.

Direct Experience with Prescribed Fire

Participation in prescribed fire activities was significantly associated with more positive perceptions (\(\beta\) = 1.14, z = 3.01, p = 0.003), indicating that hands-on experience fosters favorable attitudes toward the practice.

Prescribed Fire Utility Perceptions

Landowners who perceived prescribed fire as useful for forage improvement (\(\beta\) = 0.81, z = 2.68,p = 0.008) and woody plant control (\(\beta\) = 0.59, z = 2.26, p = 0.025) held significantly more positive overall attitudes toward prescribed fire. Additionally, perceptions of usefulness for wildfire mitigation showed a marginally significant positive association with prescribed fire attitudes (\(\beta\) = 0.35, z = 1.93,p = 0.055), suggesting a trend toward more positive views among those who see prescribed fire as effective for wildfire risk reduction.

Land Tenure

Years of ownership showed a negative relationship with prescribed fire attitudes (\(\beta\) = 0.47, z = -2.16, p = 0.032), though the practical significance of this effect was modest.

Marginally Significant Factors (significant at p > 0.10)

Prescribed burn association membership showed a marginally significant positive association with prescribed fire perceptions (\(\beta\) = 1.51, z = 1.70, p = 0.092), suggesting a trend toward more favorable attitudes among association members.

Non-significant Factors

First-hand experience with wildfire did not emerge as a significant predictor of prescribed fire attitudes (p = 0.589). Land management motivations including livestock production, wildlife, crop production, investment, and recreation were not significantly associated with prescribed fire perceptions. Additionally, demographic factors such as gender, time spent on property, percent income from property, acreage owned, and perceptions of likelihood of fatality/injury were not significant predictors.

Table 7: Ordinal Regression Results - Perception of Prescribed Fire

Model: Proportional odds logistic regression with multiple imputation (m=5)

Predictor	Estimate	SE	z-value	p-value	95% CI Lower	95% CI Upper	Sig.
Likelihood of damage to other’s property	-0.819	0.198	-4.128	0.0001	-1.210	-0.428	***
Participation in a prescribed fire	1.137	0.378	3.009	0.0030	0.392	1.882	**
Usefulness for forage improvement	0.806	0.300	2.682	0.0080	0.213	1.398	**
Usefulness for woody plant control	0.588	0.260	2.263	0.0248	0.075	1.101
Years of ownership	-0.473	0.219	-2.158	0.0321	-0.906	-0.041
Usefulness for wildfire mitigation	0.350	0.181	1.934	0.0546	-0.007	0.707
Prescribed burn association membership	1.513	0.892	1.696	0.0915	-0.247	3.274
Year born	0.290	0.181	1.597	0.1120	-0.068	0.647
Usefulness for wildlife habitat	0.267	0.187	1.427	0.1553	-0.102	0.637
Acreage owned	0.151	0.146	1.033	0.3029	-0.137	0.439
Usefulness for watershed health	0.206	0.208	0.988	0.3244	-0.205	0.617
Time spent on property	0.116	0.142	0.819	0.4140	-0.164	0.396
Motivation - livestock production	-0.308	0.393	-0.783	0.4349	-1.083	0.468
Motivation - recreation	0.268	0.482	0.557	0.5785	-0.682	1.218
Percent income from property	-0.100	0.184	-0.541	0.5892	-0.462	0.263
First hand experience with wildfire	0.171	0.316	0.541	0.5894	-0.453	0.795
Motivation - crop production	0.199	0.385	0.517	0.6059	-0.560	0.958
Gender	0.177	0.391	0.451	0.6522	-0.595	0.949
Motivation - investment	0.153	0.403	0.380	0.7043	-0.641	0.947
Likelihood of fatality/injury	-0.068	0.195	-0.350	0.7270	-0.452	0.316
Motivation - wildlife	-0.103	0.336	-0.307	0.7592	-0.766	0.560
** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05
† Significant predictors (p < 0.05) highlighted in blue

Figure 3: Model estimates with 95% confidence intervals for factors influencing current perceptions of prescribed fire. Asterisks indicate statistical significance (p < 0.05).

Factors Influencing Changes in Prescribed Fire Perceptions Over Time

A second proportional odds model examined predictors of temporal changes in prescribed fire attitudes (Table 8, Figure 4). This model incorporated additional variables related to concerns about prescribed fire risks and perceptions of its usefulness across multiple management objectives.

Prescribed Burn Association Membership

Membership in a prescribed burn association was the strongest positive predictor of increasingly positive attitudes over time (β = 1.142, z = 6.803, p < 0.001), indicating that association involvement is strongly associated with more favorable changes in prescribed fire perceptions

Demographic Factors

Year born (age) was significantly associated with changes in prescribed fire attitudes (β = -0.003, z = -3.795, p < 0.001), though the practical significance of this effect was modest.

Risk Perceptions

Perceptions of the likelihood of damage to others’ property emerged as a significant negative predictor (β = -0.545, z = -2.622, p = 0.010), consistent with the first model’s findings regarding risk concerns.

Prescribed Fire Utility Perceptions

Landowners who perceived prescribed fire as useful for wildlife habitat held significantly more positive changes in attitudes over time (β = 0.496, z = 2.475, p = 0.014) .

Non-significant Factors

Participation in prescribed fire activities did not significantly predict changes in attitudes over time (β = 0.361, z = 1.072, p = 0.285), unlike in the current perceptions model. First-hand experience with wildfire also did not significantly predict changes in prescribed fire attitudes over time (β = -0.144, z = -0.474, p = 0.636). Additionally, perceptions of usefulness for woody plant control, forage improvement, watershed health, and fuel reduction were not significant predictors of attitude change.

Table 8: Ordinal Regression Results - Change in Perception of Prescribed Fire

Model: Proportional odds logistic regression with multiple imputation (m=5)

Predictor	Estimate	SE	z-value	p-value	95% CI Lower	95% CI Upper	Sig.
Membership in a prescribed burn association	1.142	0.168	6.803	0.0000	0.811	1.473	***
Year born	-0.003	0.001	-3.795	0.0002	-0.005	-0.002	***
Likelihood of damage to other’s property	-0.545	0.208	-2.622	0.0095	-0.955	-0.135	**
Usefulness for wildlife habitat	0.496	0.201	2.475	0.0142	0.101	0.892
Motivation - wildlife	-0.450	0.305	-1.476	0.1417	-1.052	0.152
Motivation - investment	0.499	0.356	1.401	0.1628	-0.204	1.202
Concern over damage to other’s property	0.245	0.190	1.287	0.1996	-0.130	0.619
Time spent on property	0.151	0.135	1.119	0.2646	-0.115	0.418
Participation in a prescribed fire	0.361	0.337	1.072	0.2852	-0.304	1.026
Concern over fatality/injury	-0.180	0.177	-1.021	0.3085	-0.529	0.168
Motivation - livestock production	0.400	0.394	1.015	0.3115	-0.378	1.178
Likelihood of smoke hazard	-0.136	0.152	-0.895	0.3717	-0.436	0.164
Gender	-0.356	0.419	-0.849	0.3971	-1.183	0.471
Motivation - recreation	0.346	0.434	0.797	0.4264	-0.510	1.201
Years of ownership	0.002	0.004	0.657	0.5122	-0.005	0.010
Usefulness for fuel reduction	0.150	0.250	0.602	0.5482	-0.342	0.643
Likelihood of fatality/injury	0.102	0.202	0.503	0.6152	-0.297	0.501
First hand experience with wildfire	-0.144	0.304	-0.474	0.6363	-0.743	0.455
Usefulness for forage improvement	0.103	0.302	0.342	0.7324	-0.492	0.699
Usefulness for woody plant control	0.068	0.260	0.260	0.7950	-0.445	0.581
Usefulness for watershed health	-0.033	0.206	-0.162	0.8716	-0.441	0.374
Concern over damage to own property	0.034	0.226	0.149	0.8818	-0.412	0.480
Concern over smoke hazard	0.020	0.174	0.118	0.9062	-0.322	0.363
Percent of income from property	-0.007	0.170	-0.041	0.9671	-0.342	0.328
Motivation - crop production	0.013	0.368	0.036	0.9711	-0.713	0.740
** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05
† Significant predictors (p < 0.05) highlighted in blue

Figure 4: Model estimates with 95% confidence intervals for changes in perceptions of prescribed fire over time. Asterisks indicate statistical significance (p < 0.05).

Relationship Between Reasons for and Direction of Attitude Change

Among landowners who reported a change in their prescribed fire attitudes, we examined whether the reason for change (categorized as prescribed fire experience, wildfire experience, or other factors) was associated with the direction of attitude change (Table 9, Figure 5). Fisher’s exact test revealed no significant association between reason for and direction of attitude change (p < 0.22).

While not significantly different, landowners whose attitude changes were attributed to prescribed fire experiences showed predominantly positive shifts in perception, with the majority reporting more positive views over time. In contrast, those attributing changes to wildfire experiences exhibited more variable patterns, including both positive and negative shifts.

Figure 5: Association between reasons for attitude change (prescribed fire experience, wildfire experience, or other factors) and the direction of prescribed fire attitude change among landowners who reported a change.

Prescribed Fire Usefulness Perceptions Among Burn Association Members

We examined patterns in perceived usefulness across different management applications specifically among prescribed burn association members. Fisher’s exact test revealed no significant differences in how burn association members rated prescribed fire’s usefulness across the five management objectives (p = 0.63; Table 10).

Across all five management applications, the majority of burn association members rated prescribed fire as “always useful” (61.5% overall; Figure 6). Three applications, woody plant control, forage improvement, and wildlife habitat, received identical high utility ratings, with 69.2% of respondents indicating these uses were “always useful”. Wildfire mitigation received moderately high ratings, with 53.8% rating it as “always useful” and 23.1% as “generally useful”. Watershed health received the most modest ratings, with only 46.2% rating it as “always useful” and higher proportions indicating it was “occasionally useful” (23.1%) or “generally useful” (23.1%). Notably, only 3.1% of all responses rated prescribed fire as “not useful” for any application, and wildfire mitigation was the only category where any respondents selected this rating.

Table 10: Fisher’s Exact Test - Prescribed Fire Usefulness

Test	Fisher’s Exact Test (simulated)
p-value	0.6347
Significance	Not significant
Sample Size	65

Contingency Table: Counts

Type of Use	Not useful	Rarely useful	Occasionally useful	Generally useful	Always useful	Total
Forage improvement	0	1	1	2	9	13
Watershed health	0	1	3	3	6	13
Wildfire mitigation	2	0	1	3	7	13
Wildlife habitat	0	2	1	1	9	13
Woody plant control	0	0	3	1	9	13
Total	2	4	9	10	40	65

Contingency Table: Row Percentages

Type of Use	Not useful	Rarely useful	Occasionally useful	Generally useful	Always useful
Forage improvement	0.0	7.7	7.7	15.4	69.2
Watershed health	0.0	7.7	23.1	23.1	46.2
Wildfire mitigation	15.4	0.0	7.7	23.1	53.8
Wildlife habitat	0.0	15.4	7.7	7.7	69.2
Woody plant control	0.0	0.0	23.1	7.7	69.2

Figure 6: Distribution of perceived fire usefulness across differnet management application among prescribed burn association members.

Land Use Motivations Among Prescribed Burn Association Members

We examined patterns in their reported motivations for land ownership among prescribed burn association members. A chi-squared test revealed significant differences in response patterns across motivation categories (χ² = 43.2, df = 4, p < 0.001; Table 11, Figure 7).

Wildlife management and livestock production were the most commonly reported motivations among burn association members, while investment and crop production were less frequently cited.

Table 11:Chi-Squared Test - Land Use Motivations of Burn Association Members

Research Question: Do prescribed burn association members show different patterns in their motivations for land ownership?

Test	Pearson’s Chi-squared Test
Chi-squared	43.197
Degrees of Freedom	4
p-value	9.42e-09
Significance	Significant (p < 0.05)
Sample Size	85

Contingency Table: Counts

	Response
Land Use Motivation	Yes	No	Total
Crop production	1	16	17
Investment	1	16	17
Livestock	15	2	17
Recreation	1	16	17
Wildlife	6	11	17
Total	24	61	85

Contingency Table: Row Percentages

Land Use Motivation	Yes (%)	No (%)
Crop production	5.9	94.1
Investment	5.9	94.1
Livestock	88.2	11.8
Recreation	5.9	94.1
Wildlife	35.3	64.7
* Percentages calculated by row (sum to 100% for each motivation)

Figure 7: Land use motivations among prescribed burn association members.

Discussion

Perceptions of Prescribed Fire as a Management Tool

The model revealed that perceptions of prescribed fire usefulness for specific land management objectives emerged as some of the strongest predictors of overall attitudes. These findings suggest that perceptions of prescribed fire’s effectiveness as a management tool play a central role in shaping attitudes. This aligns with research highlighting the role of prescribed burn associations and direct engagement in promoting prescribed fire adoption to meet certain management objectives. (Discussion on forage production and woody plants specifically…)

The finding that participation in prescribed fire activities was significantly associated with more positive perceptions indicates that hands-on experience may foster favorable attitudes toward the practice. This reinforces the importance of hands-on experience in attitude formation (cite social science papers). And is supported by literature on attitudes toward prescribed fire (Clarck et al. 2022, others??)

Risk perceptions also influence attitudes, as concerns about the likelihood of damage to others’ property were significantly associated with more negative attitudes toward prescribed fire, suggesting that perceived risks influence overall attitudes toward the practice. This finding is well supported in prescribed burning perspectives literature. (Add specifics from the literature)

The Limited Role of Wildfire Experience

Notably, first-hand experience with wildfire did not emerge as a significant predictor of prescribed fire attitudes in either model, contrary to expectations that wildfire experience might either heighten concerns about fire-related risks, or galvanize support for prescribed fire as a fuels reduction strategy. This consistent null finding across both models provides robust evidence that wildfire experience, while potentially important in other contexts, does not appear to be a primary driver of prescribed fire attitudes in this working grassland landscape setting in the southern Great Plains. This finding suggests that in working grassland landscapes, attitudes toward prescribed fire may be shaped more strongly by perceptions of its utility as a land management tool than by past wildfire experiences.

Wildlife Habitat Management and Attitude Dynamics

An intriguing pattern emerged when comparing the two regression models: perceptions of prescribed fire’s usefulness for wildlife habitat management significantly predicted increasingly positive attitude changes over time but was not a significant predictor of current overall attitudes toward prescribed fire. This differential effect suggests that wildlife habitat benefits may play a particularly important role in the evolution of landowner perspectives rather than in forming initial attitudes. This pattern could reflect a learning process whereby landowners who initially adopt prescribed fire for other purposes (such as woody plant control or forage improvement) subsequently observe improvements in wildlife habitat and experience positive shifts in their overall assessment of the practice. Given that wildlife management was one of the most commonly reported motivations among burn association members, this finding highlights how the multipurpose benefits of prescribed fire, particularly those that align with landowners’ management goals, can reinforce and strengthen favorable attitudes over time even when they may not have been the primary drivers of initial perceptions. This temporal dimension of attitude formation underscores the value of long-term engagement with prescribed fire practices in building sustained support for the tool.

Prescribed Fire Utility Among PBA Members in Working Landscapes

Consistent with findings regarding all survey respondents, prescribed burn association members view prescribed fire as a multipurpose management tool that simultaneously addresses multiple objectives in working landscapes. The more tempered evaluation of watershed health may reflect either less value placed in this ecosystem service, less direct experience observing watershed benefits, or greater uncertainty about prescribed fire’s effectiveness for this specific outcome. The uniformly positive evaluation of prescribed fire utility among burn association members, who represent landowners with direct hands-on experience using the practice, provides strong evidence that experience with prescribed fire reinforces perceptions of its value as a land management tool. These findings align with the broader pattern observed in this study that perceptions of prescribed fire usefulness, rather than wildfire experience, are central to shaping attitudes toward prescribed burning in working landscapes.

Land Management Goals and Prescribed Fire Engagement

Our findings also revealed important insights into how prescribed burn association members evaluate prescribed fire utility across five distinct management applications. The high and consistent ratings for woody plant control, forage improvement, and wildlife habitat suggest that burn association members view prescribed fire as a multipurpose management tool that simultaneously addresses multiple objectives in working landscapes. Wildfire mitigation received moderately positive ratings, falling between the highest-rated traditional rangeland management applications and watershed health, suggesting general confidence in prescribed fire’s effectiveness for reducing wildfire risk while acknowledging some variability in its perceived utility for that purpose. This might reflect variability in its actuall effectiveness in different parts of the study region (more utility for wildfire where it reduces cedar density - make more dangerous wildfires than grass and can knock some out with fire vs areas that are dominated by grass where it will grow back quicklu after burning and become available fuel again relatively quickly so does not actually reduce wildfire potential or intensity).