Next Article in Journal
Acknowledgment to the Reviewers of Fire in 2022
Previous Article in Journal
Decision Support Models and Methodologies for Fire Suppression
Previous Article in Special Issue
Classification of Fire Damage to Boreal Forests of Siberia in 2021 Based on the dNBR Index
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fire
Volume 6
Issue 2
10.3390/fire6020038
fire-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Perceptions of Turkish Forest Firefighters on In-Service Trainings

by
Ismail Safak
1,
Taner Okan
2,* and
Devrim Karademir
3
1
Aegean Forestry Research Institute, General Directorate of Forestry, Zeytinalanı, 35515 Izmir, Turkey
2
Department of Forestry Economics, Faculty of Forestry, İstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, 34473 Istanbul, Turkey
3
Vocational School of Social Sciences, Ordu University, 52200 Ordu, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fire 2023, 6(2), 38; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/fire6020038
Submission received: 29 November 2022 / Revised: 8 January 2023 / Accepted: 16 January 2023 / Published: 18 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fire Suppression and Fuel Management in Eastern Europe: Research Advances and Best Practices)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Forest ecosystems in the Mediterranean Basin experience frequent forest fires, and the risk of hazards to people and assets is expected to increase in the face of climate change. Turkey is one of the countries in the Mediterranean Basin that has faced extreme forest fires in recent years. Forest firefighters are key actors at the forefront of fighting forest fires, and their effectiveness is largely related to in-service training. This study investigates the differences in in-service training and knowledge competencies of forest firefighters working in five fire-sensitive regions in Turkey. The results of the study are based on a survey of 975 forest firefighters. Sociodemographic data are presented as frequency, mean, and percentages. The Kruskal–Wallis H test was used to determine the differences in the perceptions of forest firefighters in the five fire-sensitive regions. It was determined that 89.74% of forest firefighters participated in in-service training, and the participation in in-service training was highest in 1st degree fire sensitive regions. Turkish forest firefighters have a strong perception that in-service training is sufficient in terms of number and content, their knowledge and experience deficiencies are eliminated, and their capacities are increased.

1. Introduction

As a global problem, forest fires cause loss of life and property in many countries and pose significant threats to communities, local economies, natural resources, and the environment. Environmental degradation caused by forest fires, such as erosion, loss of vegetation, and deterioration of the air quality, have negative effects on social welfare [1,2,3]. For these reasons, policies related to forest fires have been developed, especially on training for the prevention of fires, early detection, and rapid intervention [4].
Turkey is one of the countries exposed to forest fires in the Mediterranean Basin. Statistics reveal that from 2012 to 2021, Turkey experienced 27,150 forest fires. A total of 226,846 hectares (ha) forests were burned in this decade [5]. The number of forest fires on the circum-Mediterranean part of Turkey, where it is very sensitive to forest fires, has increased recently [6]. Turkey experienced mega forest fires in 2021 simultaneously, which caused a significant increase in the burned area per fire [7]. Originally used to describe major fires in the Western United States, “Megafire” refers to fires greater than 40,000 hectares that are very difficult to control and are often exacerbated by extreme weather conditions, such as prolonged high temperatures and drought [8,9,10]. In 2021, which was an important year in terms of forest fire history, 55 thousand hectares of forest area was burned in the mega forest fire that occurred in Manavgat, which is affiliated to the Antalya Regional Directorate of Forestry [11,12].
These concerning threats caused by the combine effects of climate change and humankind have brought into question combating forest fires, especially concerning forest firefighters (FFFs), which is an important component of suppression [13,14,15,16,17]. The qualifications and training of FFFs are considered important success factors in suppression forest fires [18]. FFFs should receive training on firefighting techniques, the safe use of firefighting equipment, precautions to be taken to escape from the fire area in emergency situations, accident risks, and prevention and first aid [19]. In addition to their technical training, FFFs participating in forest fire fighting activities need to be well trained in terms of motivation, determination, will and initiative [16]. It is also important to bring the knowledge, experience, perception, preferences and attitudes of the FFFs toward the forest fire prevention tasks to the same level with the training activities because FFFs represents a heterogeneous structure, such as education levels, origins (rural–urban life), family livelihoods (agriculture, tradesman, labor, etc.), and geographical regions [18].
Combating forest fires is a complex and often dangerous process that requires good organization and the cooperation of teams. One of the most important components of this process is related to the in-service training of FFFs involved in firefighting [20]. The Forest Fire Fighting Evaluation Report and Forest Fires Fighting Action Plan of GDF reported that FFFs in Turkey are given training on fire suppression techniques, first aid and other technical issues before the fire season. Fire truck operators are given hands-on training on advanced driving techniques. FFFs are always ready for duty by undergoing on-the-job training from the day they are hired. Video lecture tapes and educational brochures prepared by using footage taken during forest fires are used in on-the-job training [5,6].
On the other hand, in the employment of FFFs, the training received in the fight against forest fires (for example, two-year vocational school graduates who received technical training in firefighting) are generally not taken into account [17]. There are inadequacies in the in-service training of FFFs caused by employment policy. For example, the decrease in the number of FFFs in recent years or their employment as temporary workers (9 months and 29 days throughout the year) has caused critiques that firefighting activities may be insufficient. It is emphasized to develop the capacities of FFFs, which play a significant role in combating forest fires [14,15,16,17]. The decrease in the number of permanent workers and the increase in the number of temporary FFFs bring an increase in the workload of the fire-responding teams. It has been stated that there is disharmony between temporary workers and permanent workers [21]. The employment of FFFs as subcontracted workers through private intermediary firms is considered a problematic employment policy [15,17]. Moreover, FFFs get tired by working additional duties [21,22].
Previous studies on FFFs generally focus on the occupational health and safety, working conditions, and job satisfaction of workers [23,24,25,26,27,28,29]. The lack of studies on the in-service training and the knowledge competencies of FFFs led us to carry out this study by including all fire-sensitivity degree regions throughout Turkey. The in-service training, experience, and knowledge competency of firefighters determine the level of effectiveness in firefighting. The current situation should be discussed with scientific data and methods in order to determine whether FFFs have reached a level that can effectively fight forest fires as a result of in-service training and whether their level of knowledge has increased. In this study, we aimed to (a) determine FFFs’ perceptions of their in-service training and knowledge competencies, and (b) reveal the differences FFFs experience in terms of in-service training and knowledge competencies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Setting

Turkey has 23,110,000 ha of forest areas that cover 29.6% of the country. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) is the principal institutional structure for the management of forest resources, which is implemented by the GDF, other general directorates connected to the MAF, and other provincial organizations [6]. Fire management in Turkey is the responsibility of the GDF, and duties are carried out by Forest Enterprise Directorates (FEDs) functioning under Regional Directorates of Forestry (RDFs) [14]. In Article 334 of the GDF Establishment Decree, the task of the GDF regarding in-service training is defined as “training the personnel involved in the fight against forest fires” [30]. GDF organizes training engineers, technicians, and firefighters on many subjects, such as forest firefighting methods, vehicle and worker organization, communication rules, vehicle-tracking systems, and first aid [6]. In Turkey, FFFs are employed within the scope of fire observation, communication, and suppression activities. A typical firefighting crew is divided into five groups: an initial response team, a reserved fighting team, a mobile team, a fire truck team, and an aerial support team (helicopter and aircraft) [31]. In 2022, there were 11,453 employed FFFs in different regions in Turkey. Most FFFs were employed in Muğla, Izmir, Antalya, Istanbul, and the Adana RDFs, which are classified as high forest fire risk [6].
FEDs are classified into five categories based on the annual averages of the number of fires and the size of burned areas in Turkey in the last 20 years [32,33]. According to the Forest Fires Action Plan for 2022, there are 8,519,378 ha in the 1st-degree fire-sensitive enterprise category (FSEC), 5,665,999 ha in the 2nd-degree FSEC, 6,466,240 ha in the 3rd-degree FSEC, 1,310,079 ha in the 4th-degree FSEC, and 1,148,304 ha in the 5th-degree FSEC (Table 1).
In terms of percentages, 36.89% of Turkey’s forests are spread across the 1st FSEC, 24.52% are in the 2nd FSEC, 27.98% are in the 3rd FSEC, 5.67% are in the 4th FSEC, and 4.97% are in the 5th FSEC [6]. In this study, we conducted a questionnaire by FFFs, who are working in initial response teams, reserved fighting teams, mobile teams, and fire truck teams. A vast amount of the FFFs are working in the regions with high fire risk (73.84%) (Table 2).

2.2. Adapted Questionnaire, Data Collection, and Data Analysis

The questionnaire was co-designed by the research team and consists of three parts:
(i) Sociodemographic information and other general characteristics that include information on age, gender, education, marital status, job/duties, and working period.
(ii) In-service training participation status, in-service training topics (E1 to E10), and participation in advanced driving technique training. Moreover, questions on FFFs’ perceptions and opinions of in-service training are based on a 9-point scale ranging from “very strongly disagree” (1) to “moderately agree” (5) to “very strongly agree” (9). This part includes five judgments (P1–P5).
(iii) Knowledge competencies and FFFs’ experiences of in-service training on combating forest fires are evaluated using a 9-point scale ranging from “very strongly disagree” (1) to “moderately agree” (5) to “very strongly agree” (9). This part includes 10 judgments (K1–K10).
The questionnaire was disseminated by mail, and necessary instructions were added to the questionnaire to make it easier for FFFs to complete the questionnaire. They were also asked to communicate with the researchers if they had any questions or issues when completing the questionnaires. We sent 1200 questionnaires to FFFs. Approximately 82% (985) of these questionnaires were returned by FFFs. Ten of the returned questionnaires were eliminated because they were not filled out properly. Thus, we used questionnaires completed by 975 FFFs from 74 FEDs under 21 different RDFs in Turkey. Data were collected in September and October 2022. After the data were collected, we reviewed the generated dataset to eliminate questionnaires that were not completed fully and surveys that contained inconsistencies.
Sociodemographic data are presented as frequency, mean, and percentages. The Kruskal–Wallis H test is used to identify significant differences between groups in the data. Kruskal–Wallis is a non-parametric test that is used as an alternative to the analysis of variance when heteroscedastic and non-normally distributed data are given [34,35]. If any differences are present, the Mann–Whitney U test is used for pairwise comparisons to confirm significance. Statistical analyses are performed using SPSS.

3. Results

3.1. FFFs’ Descriptive Statistics

Table 3 presents the status of FFFs in terms of age, education, marital status, and duties. The average age of FFFs was 36.89. In terms of education, 22.15% of the FFFs were primary school graduates, 19.08% secondary school graduates, 48.51% high school graduates, 8.51% vocational school graduates and 1.74% undergraduate graduates.
66.87% of FFFs were married. The duty of 66.46% of the participants was fire combat workers. The second-largest group comprised drivers and operators, and communication and observation workers made up the smallest group (1.95%). In terms of annual average work, FFFs in the 1st FSEC stood out with 12.06 (9.73) years, while the FFFs in the 4th FSEC were in last place with 6.83 years.

3.2. FFSs’ In-Service Training

3.2.1. FFSs’ In-Service Training Status

Table 4 compares the in-service training status of FFF trainees and those who were untrained in five FSECs from our questionnaire. The number of untrained FFFs was significantly smaller than those who were trained. In the last five years, 100 (10.26%) out of 975 forest fire workers had not received any training. The number of trainee FFFs was 875 (89.74%). The most prominent result from Table 4 is that the majority of FFFs in the 1st FSEC were trainees, and the average number of training courses per person in the 5th FSEC was the lowest.
FFFs who did not undergo training were evaluated in terms of the years they worked. The number of FFFs who had just started working was 251, and 26.69% (67 people) of them started work without any training. The number of employees who worked for two years was 46, and those who had been employed for three or more years was 678. Of these employees, 17.39% (8 people) and 3.69% (25 people), respectively, were performing their duties without any training.

3.2.2. In-Service Training Topics for FFFs and Their Distribution in Terms of FSECs

The in-service training topics (E1 to E10) organized for FFFs and their distribution in terms of FFFs in the FSECs are presented in Table 5. Accordingly, training courses within the scope of combating forest fires were divided into two headings: training on suppression activities (E1–E9) and training on communication and radio use (E10). Certified courses on fire training (E1) were organized by Public Education Center Directorates (PECDs) affiliated with the Ministry of National Education. FFFs could attend these courses before and/or after they started work, and 28.23% of FFFs attended these courses. FEDs organized forest fire preparation training (E2) for FFFs before the fire season started, and all personnel participated in this training as much as possible. As shown in Table 5, 90.51% of the FFFs attended forest fire preparation training at the beginning of the season.
Fire truck teams have a significant impact on suppressing forest fires, and 79.54% of the workers attended training on using the tools and equipment in the vehicles (E3). In particular, 78% of the FFFs in the 1st FSEC, which is the most sensitive area to fire, and 79% in the 2nd FSEC, attended this training. When fighting forest fires, a fire hose can be laid up to 500 m; therefore, laying and the systematic placement of fire hoses is an important and very time-consuming activity, especially in mega forest fires. In this context, 78.63% of the personnel attended training on fire hose laying and placing techniques (E4). The training was attended by 78% of the personnel in the 1st FSEC, 80% in the 2nd FSEC, 78% in the 3rd FSEC, 87% in the 4th FSEC, and 67% in the 5th FSEC.
Hand tools are used for various purposes such as reducing the number of fuel materials and revealing mineral soil in the fight against forest fires. In this context, 73.26% of the FFFs attended training on the use of hand tools in forest fires (E5). This training was attended by 72% of the personnel in the 1st FSEC, 81% in the 2nd FSEC, 66% in the 3rd FSEC, 78% in the 4th FSEC, and 63% in the 5th FSEC. Overall, 72.69% of the personnel participated in training on the scope of transition to forest fires and work to be done in the field of fire (E6), with 73% from the 1st FSEC, 72% from the 2nd FSEC, 67% from the 3rd FSEC, 78% from the 4th FSEC, and 67% from the 5th FSEC in attendance.
To reduce the number of fuel materials, firebreaks are constructed by heavy machinery and/or hand tools, especially when fighting mega forest fires. In this context, 49.71% of the FFFs attended training on firebreaks construction principles (E7), with 55% from the 1st FSEC, 49% from the 2nd FSEC, 36% from the 3rd FSEC, 33% from the 4th FSEC, and 47% from the 5th FSEC in attendance.
Fire aircraft and helicopters are widely used for air power in combating forest fires. To prevent occupational accidents during forest fires, the aircraft’s operating mode, water intake, and discharge principles (E8) are explained to FFFs. Only 10.74% of the personnel attended training organized within this scope. Aircraft and helicopters are mostly used in the 1st FSEC, and participation in this training was below 13% in all regions. Due to the difficulty of night-working conditions, FFFs make more mistakes, and work accidents are more common. Training on working at night and transferring to the fire area at night was attended by 27.09% of the FFFs (E9), 30% from the 1st FSEC, which is the most sensitive area to fire, 25% from the 2nd FSEC, 15% from the 3rd FSEC, 23% from the 4th FSEC, and 30% from the 5th FSEC attended this training.
Communication is one of the most important issues when organizing how to combat forest fires. Communication tools are used in many areas such as the location of the fire, its severity, its transportation, how to respond to the fire, the change in the fire situation, and warning those in danger. The questionnaire revealed that 59.43% of FFFs generally attended communication and radio usage training (E10); 61% of the FFFs were from the 1st, and 2nd FSECs, which are the most sensitive areas to fire, and 44% were from the 3rd FSEC attended this training.

3.2.3. Status of FFFs’ Advanced Driving Technique Training

Initial response vehicle drivers (IRVDs), fire truck drivers (FTDs), and heavy equipment operators (HEOs), such as dozer, grader, trailer, and water tanker drivers (WTDs), are trained in activities to be carried out in forest fires and safe and fast action within the scope of combating forest fires.
Table 6 presents the participation of FFFs in advanced driving technique training. This training course is mostly delivered by the expert team formed under the Machine Supply (Maintenance) Section Manager in the RDFs. Furthermore, advanced driving technique training is given to FTDs by training experts from the International Fire Training Center. As seen in Table 6, advanced driving technique training was given to only 147 (47.73%) out of 308 drivers or operators in the last five years. In the 1st FSEC, which is the most sensitive to fire, 45.10% of the drivers or operators were trained in advanced driving techniques, and approximately 55% in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th FSECs, and 33.33% in the 5th FSEC were trained (Table 6).

3.2.4. Perceptions and Opinions of FFFs on In-Service Training

As shown in Table 7, FFFs evaluated the number and content (P1) of training courses on forest fires as 7.28. While P1 training was 6.29 in the 5th FSEC, it scored at least 7 in the other FSECs. FFFs strongly agreed (7.39) that the training was related to subjects in which they felt they lacked knowledge and experience (P2). They strongly stated that there were too many changes (7.07) in their work life and motivation (P3) after the training. Although FFFs evaluated P3 training as 6.77 and 6.58 in the 2nd and 3rd FSECs, respectively, a score of at least 7.21 was given in the other FSECs. FFFs strongly agreed that basic training in fighting forest fires increased their knowledge and skill levels (P4) by a great deal (7.79). They stated that with the contribution of the training, they had a high level of knowledge and skills (7.71) on protection from high temperatures caused by forest fires (P5).

3.2.5. Kruskal–Wallis Test for Differences between Turkish FFFs’ Perceptions and Opinions on In-Service Training

The Kruskal–Wallis H test was used to assess whether the FFFs’ perceptions and opinions regarding in-service training differed between FSECs (Table 8). There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) among FFFs in terms of their perceptions and opinions on P2 and P5. Significant differences were found (p ≤ 0.05) in the perceptions and opinions of FFFs within the scope of P1, P3, and P4.
In the second stage, significant differences between FSECs were determined using the Mann–Whitney U test by making a pairwise comparison (Table 8). For the perception and opinions of the number and content (P1) of training courses on forest fires, there was a significant difference between the 5th FSEC and 1st FSEC (p = 0.01) and the 2nd FSEC (p = 0.01). There was a significant difference between the 4th FSEC and the 1st FSEC (p = 0.01), and the 3rd FSEC (p = 0.00) and the 5th FSEC (p = 0.00), but there was no significant difference between the other FSECs (0.05 < p).
There was a significant difference between the 3rd FSEC, 1st FSEC (p = 0.00), and 4th FSEC (p = 0.02) for the perception of change in work life/motivation (P3) after the in-service training, but there was no significant difference between the other FSECs (0.05 < p). There was a significant difference between the 4th FSEC and the 1st FSEC (p = 0.00), and the 2nd FSEC (p = 0.05) and the 3rd FSEC (p = 0.01), for the perception that basic education in combating forest fires changed knowledge and skill levels (P4), but there was no significant difference (0.05 < p) among other FSECs.

3.3. Knowledge Competencies and Experience Status of Turkish FFFs

3.3.1. Knowledge and Experience Competencies of Turkish FFFs

The FFFs’ knowledge of forest fire suppression techniques (K1) was 7.58. K1 was below 7 (6.92) in the 5th FSEC and above 7 in the other FSECs (Table 9). Knowledge about the pumper truck, pump, fire hoses, and equipment (K2) was 7.60. K2 was below 7 (6.66) in the 5th FSEC and above 7 in the other FSECs. Knowledge of the apparatus (K3) used in water supply vehicles was 7.21. K3 knowledge and experience levels were below 7 in the 5th FSEC (6.21) and 3rd FSEC (6.80) and above 7 in the other FSECs. Knowledge of cooling techniques (K4) in the burned areas was 7.79. K4 knowledge and experience levels were above 7 in all FSECs. Firebreaks construction knowledge (K5) in fire suppression was 6.92. K5 was 7.35 in the 1st FSEC and below 7 in the other FSECs. Aircraft response information (K6) was 4.13 in all FSECs. Land structure (topography) and wayfinding knowledge (K7) was 6.36. K7 was below 7 in all FSECs.
Chainsaw usage knowledge (K8) was 6.41. K8 was above 7 in the 5th FSEC (7.24) and below 7 in the other FSECs. Knowledge about using hand tools (K9) was 7.50. K9 was above 7.30 in all FSECs. Communication and radio usage information (K10) was 7.52. K10 was below 7 in the 5th FSEC (6.58) and above 7 in the other FSECs.

3.3.2. Kruskal–Wallis Test for Differences between Turkish FFFs’ Knowledge and Experience Competencies

The Kruskal–Wallis H test was used to evaluate if there was a significant difference between the FFFs working in different FSECs in terms of their knowledge and experience levels in in-service training issues (Table 10). There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the FFFs working in different FSECs in terms of knowledge and experience levels in K10 and K11. However, there was a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) among FFFs working in different FSECs in terms of their knowledge and experience levels in other in-service training topics. When the Mann–Whitney U test results were evaluated, in general, there was a significant difference between the 1st and 2nd FSECs (except for K2, K3, and K4) and the 3rd and 5th FSECs (except for K2, K3, and K7) in almost all training subjects (p ≤ 0.05).
There was a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) between the 3rd and 2nd FSECs (except K6, K7, and K9) and the 4th FSEC (except K9) in almost all in-service training subjects. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the 2nd and 4th FSECs (except K6 and K7) and the 5th FSEC in almost all in-service training subjects. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the 5th and 3rd FSECs and the 4th FSEC (except K2, K6, and K10) in almost all in-service training subjects.

4. Discussion

Our study results showed that almost half of the FFFs (approximately 49%) graduated from high schools. This result is different from previous studies, which shows that the FFFs are generally primary school graduates [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]. One of the main reasons for this situation is the improvement in education level in Turkey. While the rate of primary school graduates in Turkey was 28.8% in 1970, it became 22.5% in 2021. The proportion of high school graduates or equivalent was 2.6% in 1970, while it was 22.4% in 2021. On the other hand, while the rate of higher education graduates was 1% in 1970, this rate reached 17.6% in 2021 [36]. In addition, the number of FFFs who graduated from vocational school was also found to be relatively higher in our study compared to the previous ones. FAT recommended that FFFs should be hired from graduates of vocational school providing education on civil defense and firefighting [15]. Although there is an improvement in FFFs’ education levels, it is still not at the desired level. GDF does not require prior technical training on firefighting issues in the employment of FFFs who will work in firefighting. Therefore, an approach that prioritizes a well-educated laborer should be adopted in employment policies to improve the in-service training of FFFs [15,16].
We found that the average age of the FFFs is 37 years. Previous studies reported that the average age of FFFs was between 41 and 50 years [21,22,23]. Although it was stated that the physical characteristics of FFFs are insufficient due to the increased average age [7,13,15,16,17], there appears to be a decrease in the mean age in this study. It was reported that 4500 new FFFs were recruited in 2022, but they are seasonal workers; therefore, there are training and experience gaps in firefighting [17]. Temporary FFFs complain about being unemployed at certain times of the year. In this situation, it is inevitable to observe the deterioration of working peace, loss of motivation, lack of joint action and decrease in work efficiency. Therefore, measures should be taken to solve the problems of temporary fire workers and to enable them to feel themselves as a part of the system [21]. In this context, the recommendation is to expand the service procurement from private forestry offices to companies along with the direct employment of workers [13,16]. However, it is stated that employment in the form of service procurement brings many problems, and it is recommended to abandon the recruitment of new FFFs and employ permanent, trained skilled FFFs every year [7,15,16]. Moreover, due to a decrease in the number of FFFs, sufficient numbers of fire trucks and ground crews cannot be utilized. For this reason, the number of workers should be increased, and the working period should be extended [7,13,15,16,17].
In the fight against forest fires, the selection of personnel with the desired characteristics and continuous training are vital. By law, firefighters must receive specific training [30,37,38]. FFFs are subject to on-the-job training from the day they are hired by GDF, and they should be ready for duty at any time [5,6,14]. The training is supported by video lessons prepared using images taken during forest fires, which are made to be watched by FFFs. In addition, training brochures are also prepared [5]. Although the GDF stated that it provided in-service training to all FFFs when they started to work, it was determined as a result of this study that approximately 27% of newly recruited FFFs were assigned without any training on how to fight forest fires. This assignment increases the risk of occupational accidents, and it also reduces the effectiveness of the fight against forest fires.
Some previous studies on FFFs stated that they participated in in-service training and evaluated it as beneficial [21,23,39]. In this study, the number and content of training courses on forest fires were deemed sufficient by the FFFs, except in the 5th FSEC. FFFs stated that the in-service training courses provided a significant change in their work motivation, except in the 3rd FSEC. In this context, we agree with Turan [39] and support expanding the content and scope of in-service training given to FFFs and also continuing them theoretically and practically.
GDF considers that it is important for drivers and operators, especially pump drivers and IRVDs, to receive advanced driving techniques training as well as forest fire response training [5]. However, in this study, only 48% of the drivers or operators attended this training. Training participation rates for IRVDs and water truck drivers were extremely low. In this context, we propose to increase the number and capacity of GDF’s advanced driving techniques training in order to ensure safe transportation of both drivers and fire workers going on duty with these vehicles.
Participation in certified fire training (E1) organized by PECDs affiliated with the Ministry of National Education (28%) was quite low. It is suggested that new FFFs are selected from those who received this training. In this case, FFFs candidates that have basic knowledge of combating forest fires will be employed. The training that FFFs receive before they start working in combating forest fires is not taken into account as a priority in the employment policy [15,17]. This situation causes FFFs to start their duties in the FEDs where they work, with inexperience and insufficient knowledge. This prolongs the motivation and adjustment period and prevents the task from being carried out effectively.
Most forest fires occur in the 1st and 2nd FSECs. For this reason, almost all of the FFFs working in these two FSECs should attend in-service training, and their knowledge and skill levels should be very high. It is stated that there will be an increase in the number of forest fires in the 1st and 2nd FSECs in the coming years, especially due to climate change and drought [40,41]. In this context, it is increasingly important to provide in-service training in the 1st and 2nd FSECs. In this context, the participation of FFFs in in-service training in these regions should be carefully considered. However, participation in firefighting lane opening principles (E7) and communications and radio use (E10) training is lower than 65% in all FSECs. GDF should consider these inadequacies in the planning of in-service training.
According to Arvas (2012), in-service training should not be under general headings, and a training plan specific to needs should be made. FFFs’ in-service training is given under general headings, and all FFFs are subjected to the same training program [42]. Instead, training programs should be developed according to FFFs’ needs. Ensuring that FFFs participate in training programs by considering their previous vocational training, experience, knowledge, and abilities will increase their effectiveness in firefighting. In addition, it is necessary to measure the effectiveness of in-service training to plan the training. In this regard, training on the operation of the aircraft, water intake and discharge principles (E8 and K6) should be planned first for reflection of the training on knowledge and skills.
The knowledge and skill levels of forest fire suppression techniques (K1) and fire truck, pump, hose, and equipment (K2) are strong in all regions except for the 5th FSEC (moderate). Hand tools are indispensable in the fight against forest fires and are used in firefighting, firefighting lanes, and cooling work [43]. The participation of FFFs in training on the use of hand tools in forest fires (E5) is low in the 3rd and 5th FSECs. However, it is seen that the level of knowledge and skills (K9) is strong, and there is no statistically significant difference between FSECs. Participation in firefighting lane opening principles (E7) training is lower than 55% in all FSECs. This situation is reflected in the knowledge and skill of opening lanes (K5) for fire suppression, and the knowledge and skill levels are below 7 in all FSECs except for the 1st FSEC.
Communication is essential in a large fire organization. In addition to continuous training that will ensure that problems are minimized, administrative measures should be taken into account, such as the implementation of qualifications and merit requirements for the relevant personnel as well as their appreciation and encouragement [7]. Participation in communications and radio use (E10) training was less than 65% in all regions. However, communication and radio usage knowledge and skills (K10) are very high in other regions except for the 5th FSEC.
In 2021, forest fires were tackled from the air, with 4 aircraft, 45 firefighting helicopters, and 3 unmanned aerial vehicles [5]. Unmanned aerial vehicles are used for the follow-up of forest fires and post-fire positional assessment, inventory, and damage assessment studies after the provincial fire [44]. Although aerial fire suppression activities are important, it is seen that fire workers are not given enough information about the operation and intervention techniques of aircraft. As a matter of fact, in all FSECs, participation in training on the operation of aircraft, water intake, and discharge principles (E8) was below 10%, and the level of reflection of this training (K6) on knowledge and skills was low.
Our study has a few limitations. As FFFs are employed in the public sector and some are not in permanent positions, there is probably bias in the responses to the questionnaires. Another limitation is that the questionnaires were self-reporting. To our knowledge, this study is the first in Turkey to report data on FFFs’ perceptions throughout the country. Despite this limitation, due to the lack of available literature on FFFs’ in-service training in Turkey, the results obtained in this study may provide a basis for FFF personnel to create a functional training structure. For this purpose, we recommend establishing a center that will organize the research and training of FFFs, as it could play an active role in the preparation of training materials to be used in combating forest fires and for training FFFs and trainers. In this regard, it is recommended to reconsider the decision of the Buca (Izmir) Forest Fires Worker Training Center [15,17,45]. Similarly, it is suggested that the idle training center in Düzlerçamı (Antalya), which was previously used as a worker training center, should be activated to train FFFs by making the necessary modifications, equipment and arrangements [14]. Therefore, further studies should focus on analyzing the functional training modules needed in FSECs.
The fact that cooperation opportunities between countries exposed to forest fires in the Mediterranean Basin are not sufficiently addressed in this study is considered as another limiting factor. The mega forest fires in Portugal in 2017 and in Greece in 2018, and in Greece 2021 again, and in Turkey and Algeria, with the loss of many lives, reminded us once more about the need to have a different and more science-oriented approach [46]. Exchange of knowledge, technology, experience, and equipment between countries in the fight against forest fires will be the most accurate and effective way to be successful in this fight. By examining various forest fires under different climate, vegetation and topography conditions of the world, it will be possible to predict how to respond to similar types of fires. For this purpose, the exchange of fire fighting personnel and scientists, especially among the Mediterranean countries, will ensure the growth and dissemination of existing knowledge [47]. GDF organized forest fire fighting trainings for technical personnel from countries such as Ukraine, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, North Macedonia, Senegal and Niger. Likewise, international training programs should be organized for forest firefighters, with cooperation especially with Mediterranean countries.

5. Conclusions

Our study attempted to understand Turkish FFFs’ perceptions of in-service training and knowledge competencies. FFFs stated that the training they received was related to the subjects they lacked knowledge and experience in, that the training made them feel safer and more cautious, and that they had strong knowledge and skills in fighting forest fires. However, in the results of this study, it was evident that the basic in-service training on combating forest fires varied between regions and that not all personnel could participate in the training. In this context, national organizations, such as the GDF, should integrate efforts to prevent forest fires and build the capacity of FFFs. Enhancing the quality of in-service training and improving knowledge competencies can help FFFs prevent future incidents, thereby protecting them from potential risks and also contributing to sustainable forest management.
Since the training needs of FFFs are continual throughout their working life, in-service training should continue with updates to provide them with the knowledge and skills they need to be successful and productive. While forest fires continue at full speed, a system should be established in which the effects of in-service training are measured, monitored and evaluated in order to increase the safety of FFFs and firefighting efficiency.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.S. and T.O.; methodology, I.S. and T.O.; formal analysis, I.S.; investigation, I.S., D.K. and T.O.; data curation, I.S., D.K. and T.O.; writing—original draft preparation, I.S. and T.O.; writing—review and editing, I.S., T.O. and D.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by General Directorate of Forestry, Aegean Forestry Research Institute, project number: 15.4001/2022-2023.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Social and Human Sciences Research Ethics Committee (2022/242 and 6 September 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

IRBS statement is not required because no humans, animals or biological material is used in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers and guest editor. All administrative support of forest enterprise directorates are deeply appreciated by the authors. We would like to thank all forest firefighters for their invaluable participation in and support for conducting the questionnaire.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sari, F. Forest fire susceptibility mapping via multi-criteria decision analysis techniques for Mugla, Turkey: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 480, 118644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bilici, E.; Eker, M.; Hasdemir, M.; Akay, A.E. Assessment of post-fire salvage logging operations in Mediterranean Region of Turkey. Šumarski List 2017, 141, 373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Daşdemir, İ.; Aydın, F.; Ertuğrul, M. Factors affecting the behavior of large forest fires in Turkey. Environ. Manag. 2021, 67, 162–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. FAO. Fire Management-Global Assessment 2006. FAO Forestry Paper 151, Rome, 2007, 121p. Available online: http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0969e/a0969e00.htm (accessed on 3 January 2023).
  5. GDF 2021. GDF Annual Report in 2021. Department of Forest Fire Combating, 141p. Available online: https://www.ogm.gov.tr/tr/faaliyet-raporu (accessed on 14 November 2022).
  6. GDF 2022. Action Plan to Combat Forest Fires; Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of the Republic of Turkey, the General Directorate of Forestry, Department of Forest Fire Combating: Ankara, Turkey, 2022; p. 220.
  7. Atmis, E.; Kavgaci, A.; Tutmaz, V. Forest fires. In Türkiye Forestry 2022: Deforestation and Deforestation in Turkey, 1st ed.; Erdogan, A., Ed.; The Forestres’ Association of Turkey: Ankara, Turkey, 2022; Volume 4, pp. 139–157. ISBN 978-605-68977-6-4. [Google Scholar]
  8. Pyne, S. “Megaburning: The Meaning of Megafires and the Means of the Management.” Wildfire 2007—4th International Wildland Fire Conference, Seville, Spain, 13 to 17 May 2007. Available online: https://gfmc.online/doc/cd/INTRODUCTORIAS_ST/Pyne_ST1.pdf (accessed on 4 January 2023).
  9. Tedim, F.; Leone, V.; Amraoui, M.; Bouillon, C.; Coughlan, M.R.; Delogu, G.M.; Fernandes, P.M.; Ferreira, C.; McCaffrey, S.; McGee, T.K.; et al. Defining Extreme Wildfire Events: Difficulties, Challenges, and Impacts. Fire 2018, 1, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. UN Environment Programme. “Are ‘Megafires’ the New Normal?”. Available online: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/are-megafires-new-normal (accessed on 28 November 2022).
  11. Bilgili, E.; Küçük, Ö.; Sağlam, B.; Coşkuner, A. Mega forest fires: Causes, organization and management. In Forest Fires: Causes, Effects, Monitoring, Precautions and Rehabilitation Activities, 1st ed.; Kavzaoğlu, T., Ed.; Turkish Akademi of Sciences: Ankara, Turkey, 2021; Volume 1, pp. 1–23. ISBN 978-605-2249-79-6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. San-Miguel-Ayanz, J.; Durrant, T.; Boca, R.; Maianti, P.; Libertá, G.; Artés-Vivancos, T.; Oom, D.; Branco, A.; de Rigo, D.; Ferrari, D.; et al. Forest Fires in Europe, Middle East and North Africa 2021; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2022; ISBN 978-92-76-58585-5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. GDF 2019. Group Working Document on Innovative Approaches in Combating Forest Fires, 3rd ed.; Agriculture and Forestry Council: Ankara, Turkey, 2019. Available online: https://cdniys.tarimorman.gov.tr/api/File/GetFile/330/Sayfa/1416/1778/DosyaGaleri/20._orman_yanginlariyla_mucadelede_yenilikci_yaklasimlar.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2022).
  14. Karacabey, B. Workshop on Forest Fires in The Process of Climate Change: Final Statement and Decisions. In Forets Fires: Causes, Effects, Monitoring, Precautions and Rehabilitation Activities, 1st ed.; Kavzaoğlu, T., Ed.; Turkish Akademi of Sciences: Ankara, Turkey, 2021; Volume 17, pp. 401–419. ISBN 978-605-2249-79-6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. FAT-Forestres’ Association of Turkey. “Forest fires are not destiny”, Special issue on Forest Fire. J. For. Hunt 2021, 4, 99. [Google Scholar]
  16. Avcı, M.; Korkmaz, M. Forest fire problems in Turkey: Evaluations of some current issues. Turk. J. For. 2021, 22, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. FAT-Forestres’ Association of Turkey. “Evaluation Report on Forest Fire Management” preapared by FAT West Mediterranean Branch Office. J. For. Hunt 2022, 5, 10–20. [Google Scholar]
  18. Tadesse, E.; Seboko, B. Training Manual On: Forest/Wildland Fire Prevention and Control for Sustainable Forest Management; Hawassa University, Wondo Genet College of Forestry and Natural Resources: Wondo Genet, Ethiopia, 2013; p. 110. [Google Scholar]
  19. ILO. Safety and Health in Forestry Work; The International Labour Organization: Genova, Italy, 1988; p. 132. [Google Scholar]
  20. Dorrer, G.; Dorrer, A.; Buslov, I.; Yarovoy, S. System of personnel training in decision making in fighting wildfires. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Krasnoyarsk, Russia Federation, 2018; Volume 450, pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kılıç, H. Forest Fires and ve Human Relations: A Case of Antalya Regional Directorate of Forestry. Master’s Thesis, Çankırı Karatekin University, Institute of Sciences, Çankırı, Turkey, 2012; p. 122. [Google Scholar]
  22. Bacı, N.; Çalışkan, E. A research on health problems of working in forest fire workers. Artvin Çoruh Univ. For. Fac. J. 2022, 23, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Özden, S.; Kılıç, H.; Ünal, H.E.; Birben, Ü. Forest Fire Human Relationship, 1st ed.; Forestres’ Association of Turkey: Ankara, Turkey, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  24. Eker, Ö.; Abdurrahmanoğlu, D.M. A research on job satisfaction of forest firefighters in Kahramanmaraş regional directorate of forestry. Turk. J. For. Sci. 2022, 6, 339–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Akay, A.E.; Yenilmez, N. Investigation of Health and Occupational Safety Problems of Workers Working in Combating Forest Fires: The case of Alanya Forestry Management Directorate. 13; National Ergonomics Congress: Kayseri, Turkey, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  26. Akay, A.E.; Serin, H.; Yenilmez, N. Investigation of Health and Occupational Safety Problems of Pilots and Other Personnel Working in Helicopters Used in Combating Forest Fires, 14; National Ergonomics Congress: Trabzon, Turkey, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gümüş, S.; Türk, Y. Investigation to determine data of safety and health conditions of forest fire workers. Düzce Univ. Fac. For. J. For. 2011, 7, 1–9. Available online: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/duzceod/issue/4823/290839 (accessed on 20 November 2022).
  28. Gülci, N.; Serin, H.; Akay, A.E. Disorders Seen in Fire Lookout Personnel Working in Fire Watch Towers. Kast. Univ. J. For. Fac. 2016, 16, 632–639. Available online: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kastorman/issue/27541/289775 (accessed on 23 November 2022).
  29. Okan Unver, S.; Acar, H.H. Evaluation of satisfaction levels from workwears of forest fire workers. J. Fac. For. Istanb. Univ. 2017, 67, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gazette of Republic of Turkey. Presidential Decree on the Organization of Ministries, Related Institutions and Organizations and Other Institutions and Organizations, Number of Presidential Decree: 4; Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye: Ankara, Turkey, 2018; Number: 30479. [Google Scholar]
  31. Akay, A.E.; Wing, M.G.; Sivrikaya, F.; Sakar, D. A GIS-based decision support system for determining the shortest and safest route to forest fires: A case study in Mediterranean Region of Turkey. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2012, 184, 1391–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. GDF. Principles of forest fire prevention and suppression. In Notification of the General Directorate of Forestry; General Directorate of Forestry: Ankara, Turkey, 1995; No 285, p. 64. [Google Scholar]
  33. Küçük, Ö.; Ünal, S. Determination of fire sensitivity degree: A case study in Taşköprü state forest enterprise. Kafkas Univ. J. Artvin For. Fac. 2005, 6, 28–34. Available online: http://ofd.artvin.edu.tr/tr/pub/issue/2255/29710 (accessed on 20 November 2022).
  34. Spano, G.; Elia, M.; Cappelluti, O.; Colangelo, G.; Giannico, V.; D’Este, M.; Lafortezza, R.; Sanesi, G. Is Experience the Best Teacher? Knowledge, Perceptions, and Awareness of Wildfire Risk. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. García-Heras, F.; Gutiérrez-Arroyo, J.; León-Guereño, P.; Carballo-Leyenda, B.; Rodríguez-Marroyo, J.A. Chronic Pain in Spanish Wildland Firefighters. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. TSI. Education, Culture, Sports and Tourism Data. Turkish Statistical Institute 2022. Available online: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=Egitim,-Kultur,-Spor-ve-Turizm-105 (accessed on 3 January 2023).
  37. Öymen, T. Forest Protection; Istanbul University Press: Istanbul, Turkey, 2013; p. 307. ISBN 978-975-404-940-4. [Google Scholar]
  38. Gazette of Republic of Turkey. Civil Servants Training General Plan; Civil Service: Ankara, Turkey, 1983; Number: 18196. [Google Scholar]
  39. Turan, Ö. Investigation of Forest Fires and Human Relations in terms of Different Stakeholder Groups. Master Thesis, Artvin Çoruh University, Institure of Science, Artvin, Turkey, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  40. Calda, B.; An, N.; Turp, M.T.; Kurnaz, L. Effects of Climate Change on the Wildfires in the Mediterranean Basin. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Pure Sci. 2020, 32, 15–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Şahan, E.A.; Köse, N.; Akkemik, Ü.; Güner, H.T.; Tavşanoğlu, Ç.; Bahar, A.; Trouet, V.; Dalfes, H.N. Fire history of Pinus nigra 583 in Western Anatolia: A first dendrochronological study. Dendrochronologia 2021, 69, 125874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Arvas, T. Analysis for in-service training needs in municipalities: The case of union of municipalities of Marmara. Master Thesis, Marmara University, Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey, 2012; 119p. [Google Scholar]
  43. Tutmaz, V. Forest Fire Fighting Guide for Those Who Live in and Adjacent to the Forest; Forestres’ Association of Turkey Publication Number: 59; Turkish Akademi of Sciences: Ankara, Turkey, 2022; ISBN 978-605-71791-0-4. Available online: https://www.ormancilardernegi.org/dosyalar/files/1%282%29.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2022).
  44. Akgül, M.; Yurtseven, H.; Demir, M.; Akay, A.E.; Gülci, S.; Öztürk, T. Usage opportunities of generating digital elevation model with unmanned aerial vehicles on forestry. J. Fac. For. Istanb. Univ. 2016, 66, 104–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tutmaz, V. Lessons from forest fires. In Special İssue on Forest Fire, Journal of Forest and Hunt; Forestres’ Association of Turkey: Ankara, Turkey, 2021; Volume 4, pp. 42–46. ISSN 1302-040X. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wills, J. 2021. Battling Wildfires from Behind the Scenes. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/battling-wildfires-behind-scenes (accessed on 3 January 2023).
  47. Ertuğrul, M. The situation of forest fires in the world and in Turkey. J. Bartın Fac. For. 2005, 7, 43–50. Available online: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/barofd/issue/3407/46884 (accessed on 3 January 2023).
Table
Table 1. Distribution of Turkey’s forests according to FSECs.
Table 1. Distribution of Turkey’s forests according to FSECs.
FSECsForest Areas (ha)Percentage (%)Number of FEDs
1st8,519,37836.86100
2nd5,665,99924.5268
3rd6,466,24027.9865
4th1,310,0795.6723
5th1,148,3044.9717
Table
Table 2. Distribution of FFFs who participated in the study by FED and FSECs.
Table 2. Distribution of FFFs who participated in the study by FED and FSECs.
FSECsNumber of FEDsNumber of FFFsPercentage (%)
1st2654255.59
2nd1917818.26
3rd1412713.03
4th9909.23
5th6383.90
Total74975100
Table
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the five questionnaire subcategories.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the five questionnaire subcategories.
CharacteristicsFSECsTotal
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Frequency (N)5421781279038975
Age (M ± SD)38.23 (10.62)36.29 (10.77)35.57 (10.40)32.07 (9.85)36.32 (12.08)36.89 (10.75)
Education [N (%)]
Primary school157 (28.97)35 (19.66)13 (10.24)3 (3.33)8 (21.05)216 (22,15)
Secondary school127 (23.43)26 (14.61)18 (14.17)11 (12.22)4 (10.53)186 (19,08)
High school210 (38.75)103 (57.87)78 (61.42)61 (67.78)21 (55.26)473 (48,51)
Associate degree36 (6.64)13 (7.3)17 (13.39)13 (14.44)4 (10.53)83 (8,51)
Bachelor’s degree12 (2.21)1 (0.56)1 (0.78)2 (2.23)1 (2.63)17 (1,74)
Marital status (N and %)
Married387 (71.4)120 (67.42)77 (60.63)47 (52.22)21 (55.26)652 (66.87)
Single155 (28.6)58 (32.58)50 (39.37)43 (47.78)17 (44.74)323 (33.33)
Duty (N and %)
Fire combat workers329 (60.7)121 (67.98)91 (71.65)79 (87.78)28 (73.68)648 (66.46)
Drivers and operators204 (37.64)51 (28.65)33 (25.99)11 (12.22)9 (23.69)308 (31.59)
Communication and observation workers9 (1.66)6 (3.37)3 (2.36)01 (2.63)19 (1.95)
Working years (M ± SD)12.06 (9.73)9.28 (7.31)8.37 (7.22)6.83 (6.29)9.53 (9.18)10.49 (8.91)
N = frequency; M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
Table
Table 4. In-service training status of FFFs.
Table 4. In-service training status of FFFs.
In-Service Training StatusFSECsTotal
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Untrained [N (%)]21 (3.87)34 (19.10)28 (22.05)9 (10.00)8 (21.05)100 (10.26)
Trainees [N (%)]521 (96.13)144 (80.90)99 (77.95)81 (90.00)30 (78.95)875(89.74)
Number of trainings between 1–5403 (77.35)108 (74.48)81 (81.82)71 (86.59)25 (83.33)688 (78.45)
Number of trainings between 6–1060 (11.52)28 (19.31)14 (14.14)9 (10.98)5 (16.67)116 (13.23)
Number of trainings between
11–15 		37 (7.1)8 (5.52)4 (4.04)0049 (5.59)
More than 15 trainings21 (4.03)1 (0.69)02 (2.43)024 (2.74)
Average number of training courses per person
(M ± SD)		5.955.174.894.433.635.48 (4.46)
N = frequency; M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
Table
Table 5. In-service training topics for FFFs and their participation status.
Table 5. In-service training topics for FFFs and their participation status.
In-Service Training
Topics [N (%)]		FSECsTotal
1st2nd 3rd 4th5th
(E1) PECD fire training159 (30.52)38 (26.21)14 (14.14)27 (32.93)9 (30.00)247 (28.23)
(E2) Seasonal forest fire preparedness training476 (91.36)133 (91.72)84 (84.85)76 (92.68)23 (76.67)792 (90.51)
(E3) Promotion and use of tools and apparatus in the fire truck406 (77.93)115 (79.31)80 (80.81)72 (87.80)23 (76.67)696 (79.54)
(E4) Fire hose laying and placing techniques 405 (77.74)116 (80.00)77 (77.78)71 (86.59)20 (66.67)688 (78.63)
(E5) Use of hand tools in forest fires376 (72.17)117 (80.69)65 (65.66)64 (78.05)19 (63.33)641 (73.26)
(E6) Fire transition and work to be done in the fire area381 (73.13)105 (72.41)66 (66.67)64 (78.05)20 (66.67)636 (72.69)
(E7) Firebreaks construction principles 287 (55.09)71 (48.97)36 (36.36)27 (32.93)14 (46.67)435 (49.71)
(E8) Aircraft operating mode, water intake, and discharge principles67 (12.86)11 (7.59)11 (11.11)2 (2.44)3 (10.00)94 (10.74)
(E9) Night working and transfer to the fire area158 (30.33)36 (24.83)15 (15.15)19 (23.17)9 (30.00)237 (27.09)
(E10) Communication and radio use317 (60.84)89 (61.38)44 (44.44)53 (64.63)17 (56.67)520 (59.43)
N = frequency.
Table
Table 6. Advanced driving technique training for FFFs and their participation status.
Table 6. Advanced driving technique training for FFFs and their participation status.
Duty/Job
[N (%)]		TrainingFSECsTotal
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
IRVDsYes40 (50.00)13 (61.90)6 (61.90)1 (100)1 (33.33)61 (52.14)
No40 (50.00)8 (38.10)6 (38.10)02 (66.67)56 (47.86)
FTDsYes43 (46.74)9 (37.50)9 (37.50)5 (50.00)2 (33.33)68 (46.90)
No49 (53.26)15 (62.50)4 (62.50)5 (50.00)4 (66.67)77 (53.10)
HEOsYes3 (17.65)4 (100.0)1 (20.0)008 (30.77)
No14 (82.35)04 (80.0)0018 (69.23)
WTDsYes6 (40.00)2 (100.0)2 (66.67)0010 (50.00)
No9 (60.00)01 (33.33)0010 (50.00)
GeneralYes92 (45.10)28 (54.90)18 (54.90)6 (54.55)3 (33.33)147 (47.73)
No112 (54.90)23 (45.10)15 (45.10)5 (45.45)6 (66.67)161 (52.27)
N = frequency.
Table
Table 7. Perceptions and opinions of FFFs on in-service training.
Table 7. Perceptions and opinions of FFFs on in-service training.
Perceptions and Opinions (M ± SD)FSECsTotal
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
(P1) The number and content of training courses on forest fires are adequate7.33 (1.95)7.28 (2.27)7.04 (1.91)7.64 (2.24)6.29 (2.28)7.28 (2.05)
(P2) The training was on subjects that I felt I lacked knowledge and experience in7.43 (1.78)7.23 (2.39)7.23 (1.98)7.74 (1.77)7.13 (2.05)7.39 (1.93)
(P3) My work motivation has changed after the training7.21 (2.07)6.77 (2.57)6.58 (2.23)7.26 (2.18)7.23 (2.4)7.07 (2.21)
(P4) The basic training in fighting forest fires has increased my knowledge and skill levels7.76 (1.6)7.72 (2.05)7.74 (1.58)8.12 (1.77)7.94 (1.41)7.79 (1.69)
(P5) I gained sufficient knowledge and skills on protection from high temperatures caused by forest fires7.76 (1.73)7.72 (2.12)7.43 (2.06)7.96 (1.94)7.16 (2.13)7.71 (1.88)
M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
Table
Table 8. Kruskal–Wallis test for differences between FFFs’ perceptions and opinions on in-service training.
Table 8. Kruskal–Wallis test for differences between FFFs’ perceptions and opinions on in-service training.
Item
No.		KWHMann–Whitney U Test
Chi-
Square		p1 to 21 to 31 to 41 to 52 to 3
zpzpzpzpzp
P117.490.00 *−0.570.57−1.600.11−2.540.01 *−2.690.01 *−1.620.11
P24.550.34
P310.750.03 *−1.330.19−2.870.00 *−0.750.45−0.560.58−1.310.19
P410.850.03 *−1.220.22−0.050.96−3.190.00 *−0.510.61−0.840.40
P58.680.07
Mann–Whitney U Test
Item No.2 to 42 to 53 to 43 to 54 to 5
zpzpzpzpzp
P1−1.870.06−2.570.01 *−3.000.00 *−1.620.11−3.420.00 *
P3−1.520.13−1.090.28−2.410.02 *−1.850.07−0.010.99
P4−1.950.05 *−0.120.91−2.510.01 *−0.480.63−1.480.14
z = z value of Mann–Whitney U test; KWH = Kruskall–Wallis H test; *: There are differences between groups (p ≤ 0.05).
Table
Table 9. Knowledge and experience competencies of Turkish FFFs.
Table 9. Knowledge and experience competencies of Turkish FFFs.
Knowledge Competencies
(M ± SD) 		FSECsTotal
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
(K1) Knowledge of forest fire suppression techniques7.80 (1.80)7.52 (1.85)7.01 (1.98)7.49 (1.94)6.92 (2.17)7.58 (1.88)
(K2) Knowledge of the pumper truck, pump, fire hoses, and equipment7.75 (1.80)7.51 (2.12)7.13 (2.12)7.90 (1.85)6.66 (2.84)7.60 (1.97)
(K3) Knowledge of the apparatus used in water supply vehicles7.36 (2.11)7.24 (2.32)6.80 (2.35)7.21 (2.49)6.21 (3.01)7.21 (2.27)
(K4) Knowledge of cooling techniques in the burned areas8.00 (1.61)7.66 (2.06)7.25 (2.15)7.82 (1.85)7.05 (2.46)7.79 (1.85)
(K5) Firebreak construction knowledge7.35 (2.14)6.63 (2.42)5.87 (2.71)6.74 (2.55)6.08 (2.97)6.92 (2.40)
(K6) Aircraft response knowledge4.64 (3.10)3.19 (2.65)3.06 (2.63)4.87 (3.47)2.97 (2.80)4.13 (3.08)
(K7) Land structure (topography) and wayfinding knowledge6.84 (2.42)5.47 (2.6)5.50 (2.51)6.58 (2.61)6.05 (3.08)6.36 (2.58)
(K8) Chainsaw usage knowledge6.31 (2.79)6.38 (2.85)6.57 (2.46)6.47 (3.07)7.24 (2.5)6.41 (2.78)
(K9) Knowledge of using hand tools7.53 (1.89)7.46 (2.27)7.30 (2.00)7.74 (1.97)7.39 (2.21)7.50 (2.00)
(K10) Communication and radio usage knowledge7.76 (1.78)7.08 (2.43)7.38 (1.91)7.57 (2.19)6.58 (2.41)7.52 (2.02)
M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
Table
Table 10. Kruskal–Wallis test for differences between FFFs’ knowledge and experience competencies.
Table 10. Kruskal–Wallis test for differences between FFFs’ knowledge and experience competencies.
Item No.KWHMann–Whitney U Test
Chi-
Square		p1 to 21 to 31 to 41 to 52 to 3
zpzpzpzpzp
K129.360.00 *−2.220.03 *−4.950.00 *−1.390.16−2.630.01 *−2.540.01 *
K216.950.00 *−0.720.47−3.300.00 *−1.610.11−1.640.10−2.090.04 *
K310.590.03 *−0.190.85−2.760.01 *−0.220.83−1.870.06−2.120.03 *
K418.360.00 *−1.450.15−3.910.00 *−0.380.71−2.200.03 *−2.090.04 *
K543.160.00 *−3.670.00 *−5.950.00 *−1.940.05 *−2.390.02 *−2.410.02 *
K654.530.00 *−5.290.00 *−5.210.00 *−0.650.52−3.290.00 *−0.650.52
K759.890.00 *−6.480.00 *−5.690.00 *−0.550.59−1.150.25−0.020.99
K85.290.26
K95.770.22
K1018.910.00 *−2.810.01 *−2.290.02 *−0.130.90−3.230.00 *−0.280.78
Mann–Whitney U Test
Item
No.		2 to 42 to 53 to 43 to 54 to 5
zpzpzpzpzp
K1−0.150.88−1.500.13−2.150.03 *−0.020.99−1.430.15
K2−1.840.07−1.200.23−3.370.00 *−0.170.87−2.250.02 *
K3−0.310.76−1.550.12−1.970.05 *−0.480.63−1.560.12
K4−0.630.53−1.280.20−2.300.02 *−0.060.96−1.590.11
K5−0.610.54−0.760.45−2.490.01 *−0.610.55−1.010.31
K6−3.600.00 *−0.870.38−3.820.00 *−0.440.66−2.950.00 *
K7−3.340.00 *−1.480.14−3.110.00 *−1.350.18−0.790.43
K10−1.860.06−1.440.15−1.620.11−1.780.08−2.580.01 *
z = z value of Mann–Whitney U test; KWH = Kruskall–Wallis H test; *: There are differences between groups (p ≤ 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Safak, I.; Okan, T.; Karademir, D. Perceptions of Turkish Forest Firefighters on In-Service Trainings. Fire 2023, 6, 38. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/fire6020038

AMA Style

Safak I, Okan T, Karademir D. Perceptions of Turkish Forest Firefighters on In-Service Trainings. Fire. 2023; 6(2):38. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/fire6020038

Chicago/Turabian Style

Safak, Ismail, Taner Okan, and Devrim Karademir. 2023. "Perceptions of Turkish Forest Firefighters on In-Service Trainings" Fire 6, no. 2: 38. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/fire6020038

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop