Prescribed fire in longleaf pine ecosystems: fire managers’ perspectives on priorities, constraints, and future prospects

Fire Ecology

Table 3 Criteria used by fire managers to prioritize longleaf pine sites for prescribed burning

Criterion^a	All responses^b	Least squares means^c		Responses, by management type
Criterion^a	Overall (n = 206)	Estimate	Grouping	Public (n = 118)	Private (n = 88)
TimeSinceBurn	76.4%	1.141	A	81.2%	70.0%
EcoHealth	67.5%	0.715	A	70.1%	64.0%
FuelReduction	48.5%	−0.051	B	47.9%	49.4%
TandE	39.9%	−0.556	B	53.9%	21.4%
Firebreaks	17.0%	−1.568	C	17.1%	16.9%
WUI	15.5%	−1.665	C	14.5%	16.9%
ExoticInvasive	14.0%	−1.874	C, D	6.8%	23.6%
OtherCrit	8.3%	−2.419	C, D	5.2%	12.4%
Timber	4.9%	−3.030	D	2.6%	7.9%

^aSee Table 1 for criteria abbreviations
^bPercentage of respondents who identified the stated criterion as one of their top three criteria for determining whether a site (e.g., stand, burn unit) has a high priority for burning
^cLeast squares mean estimate and Tukey-Kramer grouping for individual constraints. Least squares means with the same letter are not significantly different (α = 0.05)