{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03185840707964602, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007964601769911504, 'mean_word_length': 5.575581395348837, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Acceptability Norms toward Fire Management in Three National Forests

Norm theory offers a paradigm for understanding why the public judges management actions acceptable or unacceptable. This study assesses normative beliefs about acceptable wildland fire management. The acceptability of three fire management actions for eight scenarios was examined. The scenarios varied by fire origin and fire impact on air quality, private property, forest recovery, and outdoor recreation. The data were obtained from a mail survey of visitors to three national forests: (a) Arapaho-Roosevelt, Colorado (n = 469), (b) Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, Washington (n = 498), and (b) San Bernardino, California (n = 321). Results of a mixed design ANOVA indicated that the acceptability of wildland fire management actions varied according to the fire scenario evaluated, but substantive differences in normative beliefs were not noted among the three forests. Chi-square analyses identified differences in normative agreement for fire management actions across scenarios but did not reveal substantive differences in normative agreement between forests.