Preferences for hazardous fuel treatments: evidence from a survey of Colorado and Utah residents

Abstract

The United States has experienced measurable increases in the prevalence and severity of annual wildfire events for the last few decades. The management of hazardous fuels can mitigate the spread and severity of wildfire events by removing or reorganizing excess woody materials that could otherwise feed fires. However, recent wildfire severity has required a large portion of the United States Forest Service (USFS) budget to be allocated to suppression efforts each year at the expense of other budget categories, such as fuel treatments. This motivates the importance of using available resources in a way that maximizes social welfare, but it is unclear what allocation is considered optimal by relevant stakeholders. This research investigates the preferences of the public for hazardous fuel treatments. The primary objective of this work is to assess how the public would prefer a portion of the USFS wildfire management budget be allocated among fuel reduction activities. A secondary objective is to determine how allocation preferences are affected when budgetary changes are presented as a loss or a gain. To address these questions, surveys were administered to a sample of the public residing in Colorado and Utah. Respondents were asked to complete a budget allocation exercise as the primary mechanism for assessing their preferences. Results indicate that on average, individuals would prefer to allocate a greater percentage of the USFS hazardous fuels budget to prescribed fire treatments than has been spent in previous years. Individuals who own their home allocate more to prescribed fire, on average, but few other characteristics are good predictors of allocation preferences. There is no statistical evidence that the framing of the budget decision affects allocation preferences.