Examining Homeowner Preferences for Fuel Treatments

1. Examining Homeowner Preferences for Fuel Treatments

2. Authors and Contributors • Allen Molina (University of Alaska Fairbanks) • Dr. Joseph Little (University of Alaska Fairbanks) • Dr. Randi Jandt (University of Alaska Fairbanks) • Dr. Stacy Drury (USDA Forest Service) • Nathan Lojewski (Forest Manager – Chugachmiut) • Will Putnam (Tanana Chiefs Conference)

3. Acknowledgements • Funding Support was provided by the Joint Fire Science Program • Research, logistic, and administrative support (Thank You!): • Alaska Fire Science Consortium • Alaska Fire Service • BLM, USFS • Wildfire Management Professionals • Homeowners

4. A vehicle to measure homeowner preferences • Survey asked Alaskan homeowners questions about wildfire • Targeted Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) neighborhoods in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB) and the Fairbanks North Star Borough. • Sample was chosen from WUI locations in Wildfire risk areas according to the respective Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP). • Approximately 2000 homeowners were contacted, with close to 400 respondents • Included traditional survey questions, as well as a choice experiment • Used to quantitatively measure preferences and willingness to pay for wildfire mitigations actions.

5. A vehicle to measure homeowner preferences • Survey questions included: • Previous mitigation activities • on their home and property • neighborhood mitigation activity • Home composition • home owners insurance premiums • defensible space around home • fire resistant home building materials • Land management agencies actions • Public land mitigation • Participation in community mitigation (Firewise) • Sociodemographic

6. Number of prepared homes

7. Clear preference for thinned fuel treatments

8. Clear preference for thinned fuel treatments

9. Clear preference for thinned fuel treatments • Permafrost protection and amenity values cited as reasons for shaded fuelbreak preference • Based on respondent comments • Conundrum: Budgets are tight, thinned fuel treatments cost more • Must consider relative effectiveness of different treatment types. • How to engage community in risk reducing efforts? • No clear preference between no fuel treatments and cleared fuel treatments • Even with untreated lands being recognized as detrimental for the community, cleared breaks were not preferred over no treatment.

10. Risk versus action • Respondents were asked: • How do you describe your risk of wildfire to their property in the next 10 years • Will affect • Will probably affect • Will probably not affect • Will not affect • Describe the amount of defensible space around your home • 0-10 feet • 10-30 feet • 30-100 feet • More than 100 feet

11. Risk versus action • Responses of risk and defensible space were correlated: • Respondents indicating threat from wildfire responded with smaller defensible spaces • Respondents indicating no threat from wildfire responded with larger defensible spaces. • May indicate that those with larger defensible spaces feel more protected from wildfire.

12. Risk versus action

13. Risk versus action

14. Choice experiment • Experiment places homeowner in position of making tradeoffs between costs and wildfire risk reducing activities and outcomes. Key Variables were: • Price of becoming Firewise compliant (costly effort) • Neighbors pursuing similar action • Type of mitigation on nearby public lands (none, cleared break, thinned break) • Direct risk reduction to your property • Risk reduction to your neighbors property • Attempting to tease out homeowner behaviors • Freeriding • Incentives to mitigate • Willingness to Pay (WTP) for mitigation

15. Choice experiment example

16. Choice experiment results

17. Choice experiment • Key findings for each variable: • Willingness to mitigate risk positively associated with number of neighbors mitigating • Indicate desire to maintain some neighborhood vegetation • Shows understanding of shared nature of fire risk • Type of public mitigation • Again, thinned fuel treatments preferred over both cleared fuel treatments, as well as no fuel treatment. • Respondents were willing to pay $765 for thinning (over cleared and no treatment options). • Respondents would rather have no treatment than a cleared break

18. Choice experiment • Shared nature of wildfire risk • Willing to pursue costly action if it benefitted neighbors property • Willingness to pay was large for big reductions in both neighbor and own risk. • The combination of number of neighbors and risk reduction to neighbors indicate respondents are willing to engage in cooperative community based activities.

19. Closing Comments • There is significant wildfire mitigation action being taken by homeowners in the FNSB, as well as KPB. • Lots of homeowners are doing something but what that something is varies considerably. • Homeowners would prefer land management agencies pursue thinning treatments rather than cleared breaks. • Added cost pressure during a time of limited budgets • Experiment outlines shared nature of community wildfire risk. • Positive willingness to pay for reducing neighbors’ risk as well as having neighbors mitigate their own property. • Willing to chip in when others do the same

20. Conclusion