We sought to assess and understand wildland/urban interface homeown-ers' attitudes toward different fuel management approaches by focus-ing on: • How they are influenced by beliefs about likely outcomes, • Their trust in the implementing agency, and • The importance they place on fuel management issues. We hoped that acceptance of fuel management approaches could be modeled from homeowners' beliefs and attitudes as predicted at the neighborhood scale using demo-graphic variables, such as those col-lected by the U.S. Census; and con-textual variables, such as proximity to high hazard fuels or catastrophic fire incidents. Discussions.and.Focus. Group.Interviews In discussions with fire and fuel managers and focus group inter-views with homeowners living in wildland/urban interface areas of California, Michigan, and Florida, we discovered a collection of issues and concerns that were remarkably consistent in these disparate sec-tions of the country. Building on these discussions, we developed and tested a nationally applicable survey instrument for evaluating public acceptance of fuel management approaches. We focused on three specific approaches that seemed to experience widely varying levels of acceptance within and between wildland/urban inter-face communities: • Prescribed burning, • Mechanical treatment, and • Defensible space ordinances. We then tested this survey instru-ment at some particularly fire-prone wildland/urban interface sites in these same three States, mailing out 4,850 surveys and receiving 2,260 responses back. The survey responses showed striking regional differences in fire-related beliefs, attitudes, and experiences, as well as different levels of acceptance of fuel management approaches. The responses also revealed some com-mon factors related to fuel manage-ment approach acceptance at all of the study sites.