David VanOllefen

Controlled Burn Survey Report

Introduction
While any type of fire in the wild can be seen as negative, there are many positive affects

that fire provides to an ecosystem (Parr and Brockett 1999). Many ecosystems rely on fire to

regenerate, such as the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Because of the risks wildfires present to

humans, there has been a critical lack of fire in the Pine Barrens. That has caused a

homogenization of tree age in the Pine Barrens as well as created a powerful fuel ladder that

could lead to catastrophic wildfire. This is where controlled burns come in. They can be used to

reduce the fuel load and help catalyze new growth in the Pine Barrens. They have become an

important part of forest management in the Pine Barrens. Because controlled burns are still fires,

they are often scrutinized by the public. It is important to consider all stakeholders when making

decisions about controlled burns, and research has shown that the public’s views on controlled

burns are often different than the fire professionals and forest managers that employ controlled

burns (Joshi et al. 2019). For this survey, I wanted to gauge the opinion of residents of South

Jersey through a survey. My main goals were to understand residents’ knowledge of controlled

burns and their attitudes towards them.

Methods

To gather data on South Jersey residents, I created a survey through Google Forms. There

were nine questions in the survey. The respondents were asked if they had heard of Smokey the

Bear, and what their feelings on wildfires were. Respondents were asked if they had heard of,

and experienced, a controlled burn before. They were asked if they worried about controlled

burns, if they thought the weather had an effect on controlled burns, and what effect they thought
controlled burns have on wildlife. Finally, they were asked how much of a need there was for

controlled burns and if they supported or opposed controlled burns. The survey was distributed

on Facebook and responses were collected from March 24th to April 8th.

Results

30
Number of Respondents

25

20

15

10

0
Strongly Oppose Moderately Neutral Moderately Strongly
Oppose Support Support
Level of Support for Controlled Burns

Has Experienced Controlled Burn Has Not Experienced Controlled Burn

Figure 1: Graph showing respondents' level of support for controlled burn based on their experience with controlled burns.

25
Number of Respondents

20

15

10

0
Negatively Affects Wildlife is Unaffected Positively Affects Don't Know
Wildlife Wildlife
Controlled Burn Effect on Wildlife

Oppose Controlled Burns Neutral Support Controlled Burns

Figure 2: Graph showing respondents’ thoughts on the effects of controlled burns on wildlife based on their support of controlled
burns.
 At the end of the collection period, I received 80 responses to my survey. All responded

that they have heard of Smokey the Bear. Only two respondents indicated any positive feelings

for wildfires, while an equal number (32) held a strongly negative view and a neutral view of

wildfires. Only one respondent had not heard of controlled burns. 31 of the 80 respondents

indicated that they had experienced a controlled burn before. 77 of the 80 respondents some to

no worry about controlled burns, while 75 respondents felt that weather had some to strong

effects on controlled burns. 30 respondents believed wildlife was negatively affected by

controlled burns, 33 believed wildlife were positively affected, 4 believed they were unaffected,

and 13 stated that they were unsure. 68 respondents indicated that they believe there is some to a

strong need for controlled burns, while 5 indicated that it depends. Reasons given were based on

habitat type and management of invasive species. One respondent strongly opposed controlled

burns, while two moderately opposed them. With 38 respondents, the majority were neutral in

their support/opposition of controlled burns, with 23 respondents moderately supporting them

and 16 strongly supporting them. When looking at different questions together, it can be seen

that every respondent who had experienced a controlled burn was neutral or supportive of

controlled burns, as seen in Figure 1. Those who supported controlled burns were also more

likely to believe that controlled burns had a positive effect on wildlife, as seen in Figure 2.

Discussion

I had some really interesting results from my survey. I think 80 is too small a sample to

make wide conclusions about South Jersey overall, but it is helpful nonetheless. One thing I

would include in the future is a few questions about demographics. I’m fairly certain that a

majority of my respondents are around my age, as that is the majority of my Facebook friends,

but it is important to know the demographics of your respondents and I wish I had added a
question about age. I think its interesting and fairly obvious that someone who has been to a

controlled burn is more likely to be supportive of them, as they are more likely to be involved or

at least educated about the process. The other question with answers that caught my attention

was the wildlife question. There was certainly no clear decisive majority, instead there was an

even spread across the answers. I think this is due to the varying effects fire can have on different

species. Birds may be fine, but smaller ground animals may not be able to escape so easily. I

could see an entire survey being based around just controlled burn effects on wildlife. I think my

survey was effective at gauging people’s opinions on controlled burns. I am happy with the

factors that I presented to help get a clearer picture on what went into a respondent’s support or

opposition.
References

Joshi, O., Poudyal, N. C., Weir, J. R., Fuhlendorf, S. D., & Ochuodho, T. O. (2019). Determinants of
perceived risk and liability concerns associated with prescribed burning in the United States.
Journal of Environmental Management, 230, 379–385. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.stockton.edu/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.089

Parr, C., Brockett, B., 1999. Patch-mosaic burning; A new paradigm for savanna fire management in
protected areas. Koedoe 42, 117–130.