Comparing the value of fuel treatment options in northern Colorado's urban and wildland–urban interface areas

Urban and Wildland–urban interface (WUI) residents of two counties in Northern Colorado were surveyed to compare residents' values for forest fuels treatment programs. A Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) survey was designed and sent to sample each of four groups: Larimer County WUI, Larimer Cou...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Forest policy and economics 2007-02, Vol.9 (6), p.694-703
Main Authors: Walker, Susan H., Rideout, Douglas B., Loomis, John B., Reich, Robin
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
attitudes and opinions
Contingent valuation
equations
fire hazard reduction
Forest fuels
forest thinning
fuels (fire ecology)
Fuels treatment
Prescribed burning
regression analysis
surveys
Thinning
wildland fire management
Wildland–urban interface
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Urban and Wildland–urban interface (WUI) residents of two counties in Northern Colorado were surveyed to compare residents' values for forest fuels treatment programs. A Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) survey was designed and sent to sample each of four groups: Larimer County WUI, Larimer County urban, Boulder County WUI, and Boulder County urban. Logistic regression models were used to estimate willingness to pay (WTP) and to calculate the odds of voting in favor of each fuel treatment program. We found that residents differed with respect to income, proximity to forested areas, perceived wildfire risk, and attitudes regarding treatment programs. Mean WTP was higher for thinning than for prescribed burning among all four samples. Boulder County residents mean WTP was about 25% higher for both programs than Larimer county residents. These results have potential implications for forest management and policy decisions related to fuels treatments in forested areas at risk of wildfire.
ISSN:1389-9341
1872-7050
DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2006.06.001