1. IDENTIFYING WILDFIRE RISK Pairing Homeowner and Professional Risk Assessment

2. Chris Barth – Southwest District Fire Management (BLM) Patricia Champ - Rocky Mountain Research Station (USFS) Travis Warziniack - Rocky Mountain Research Station (USFS) James Meldrum – Institute of Behavioral Science (CU) Hannah Brenkert-Smith - Institute of Behavioral Science (CU) Identifying Wildfire Risk Pairing Homeowner and Professional Risk Assessment

3.  The West Region Wildfire Council and its multi-county efforts to address wildfire risk in southwest Colorado;  Household survey data that reveals homeowners’ wildfire risk self- evaluations, and comparisons between self-evaluations and professional risk assessments;  Spatial spill-over effects: Do the conditions on neighboring parcels affect homeowners’ decisions? How spatial and social relationships contribute to homeowner decisions? Do social interactions bolster or dampen spill-over effects?;  Effects of cost share programs to incentivize homeowners to undertake mitigating behaviors. Willingness to Pay vs. Willingness to Participate?  Future research  Questions

4. Past Experience Research team has been working together through formal and informal partnerships for the past ten years. COLORADO Larimer County Boulder County El Paso County  Waldo Canyon Fire - 2012  Black Forest Fire -2013  Four Mile Fire – 2010  High Park Fire - 2012

5. West Region Wildfire Council Mission Statement: The West Region Wildfire Council promotes wildfire preparedness, prevention and mitigation education throughout Delta, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Montrose, Ouray and San Miguel counties. The WRWC mission is to mitigate loss due to wildfire in wildland urban interface communities while fostering interagency regional partnerships to help prepare counties, fire protection districts, communities and agencies to plan for and mitigate potential threats from wildfire. WRWC Goals:  Support the development of wildfire planning efforts to better prepare communities, counties and agencies for wildfire.  Provide wildfire education and outreach resources in order to promote and facilitate educational initiatives as well as program objectives.  Promote fuels reduction and mitigation projects in WUI communities to reduce risk and mitigate potential loss.  Provide organizational development and sustainability to ensure WRWC program success.

6. Community Wildfire Protection Plans  Healthy Forest Restoration Act (2003): includes the first meaningful statutory incentives for the US Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to give consideration to the priorities of local communities as they develop and implement forest management and hazardous fuel reduction projects.  Colorado Senate Bill 09-001 (2009): defined more specificity for the development of CWPPs in Colorado - requiring that all Colorado counties with a wildfire risk must develop county CWPPs. Further, it required that the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) develop guidelines and requirements for the creation of CWPPs in Colorado.  CSFS revised minimum standards (2009): state that CWPPs in Colorado must include: diverse collaboration, a definition and corresponding map of the community’s wildland urban interface (WUI), a community risk analysis that considers fuel hazards, risk of wildfire occurrence and community.

7. Current Research Ouray County completed a county level CWPP in 2011. Log Hill Mesa Fire Protection District CWPP was completed in 2012. COLORADO Larimer County Boulder County El Paso County Ouray County

8. Wildfire Risk Assessment West Region Wildfire Council completed a parcel level wildfire risk assessment for each home within the fire protection district (greater than 800 sq. ft.)

9. The Homeowner Survey  Started with assessment tool to develop analogous survey questions. Tested in 2 focus groups.  Survey mailed to 608 properties in Log Hill Mesa Fire Protection District; 140 undeliverable; 291 returned (62% response rate)  Cover letter signed by Fire Chief and WRWC Coordinator  Reminder postcard and another survey packet  Survey implemented soon after draft CWPP that included results of parcel level assessments (maybe homeowners saw this?)  Survey respondents and non-respondents similar on all risk factors except display of address.

10. Survey Respondents  62 yrs old (on avg)  49% retired; 29% work fulltime  70% at least college graduates  Median income ~$87,500  93% own home  82% live there year round  Mean year move to house 2002  Mean year home built 1996

11. Wildfire Awareness Somewhat or very aware of wildfire risk when moved in 91% Very concerned about wildfire affecting residence 93% > 50% chance a wildfire will start on or spread to your property 10% > 50% chance a fire on property will destroy or severely damage home 34%

12. Wildfire Attitudes

13. Wildfire Experience

14. Neighbors

15. Wildfire on Your Property

16. Overall Risk Rating Points Assessment Survey Question Low 25-1509%10% Moderate 151-17511%49% High 176-27066%30% Very High 271-33010%8% Extreme 331-5954%2%

17. Risk Disparity  OVERESTIMATE: Predominant background fuel type in neighborhood  UNDERESTIMATE: Distance from house to overgrown, dense, unmaintained vegetation Distance from house to light flashy vegetation, propane tanks, trees, firewood, trash Reflective nature of posted address Combustible building exterior, balcony, deck or porch

18. Defensible Space PointsAssessment Survey Question > 150 ft09%12% 31-150 ft5029%47% 10-30 ft7551%33% < 10 ft10010%8%

19. Other Combustibles PointsAssessment Survey Question None or > 30 ft07%59% 10-30 ft from structure 104%31% < 10 ft from structure 3089%10%

20. Address PointsAssessment Survey Question Posted and reflective 05%29% Posted, NOT reflective 586%62% Not visible from road 1510%9%

21. Siding, Balcony, Deck or Porch PointsAssessment Survey Question Non- combustible siding 035%49% Log, heavy timbers 209% Wood, vinyl, or wood shake 6042%

22. The Influence of Neighbors  We all have two types of neighbors: Those that make our property  MORE safe/friendly/valuable  LESS safe/friendly/valuable  How do we react to these neighbors?

23. Do We… Strategic Complements

24. Or… Strategic Substitutes

25. In Log Hill We See.. High risk homes next to high risk homes Low risk homes next to low risk homes

26. Our Concept of Neighbor is Broad

27. And Evidence That… Size of home-5 / 1000 sqft Background fuels+1 / assessed point Slacker neighbor+30 if slacker Background & slacker-1 / assessed point all matter for perception of risk and outcomes on the property! --- but maybe not for perceived outcomes on the property

28. Which means we

29. The Role of Cost Sharing  Many programs encourage wildfire risk mitigation on private lands  184 state, county, and local programs (Haines et al. 2008)  About ½ subsidize fuel treatments  What is role of cost sharing in influencing risk mitigation on private property?

30. We asked: Barriers to Mitigation?

31. Incentives for Mitigation?

32. Valuation of Cost Sharing?

33. Economic Model of Responses Participate? No Willing to pay how much? $1000 (willing to accept $0) $0 (willing to accept $1000) $800 (willing to accept $200) $600 (willing to accept $400) $400 (willing to accept $600) $200 (willing to accept $800) Yes Resident and property characteristics Barriers and incentives for mitigation Risk ratings (by resident and wildfire specialist) Agreement with related attitude statements

34. Results: Risk Ratings

35. Results: Barriers

36. Results: Attitude Measures

37. Some key results for Log Hill Mesa  Most would participate, average WTP about $400/acre  Decisions to participate are complex!  Some attitudes linked to lower WTP, many unrelated (but still would participate)  Wealthier/older are WTP more (but have same participation levels)  More participation if higher perceived risk But also if lower assessed risk!  More participation if want property-specific information

38. Wrap Up  Multi-year effort – Multiple locations –  Centrality of partnerships  Focus on homeowner mitigation behavior  Spill-over effects  Cost-share programs  Log Hill findings  Underestimation of risk among homeowners  Conditions on neighboring properties matter  Participation in programs may be used for property- specific information

39. Future Research  Engage what it means to be fire-adapted  Maintain focus on homeowner behavior  Explore how community-type and community characteristics relate to mitigation behavior  Explore role of different community outreach approaches in mitigation decisions

40. Key Partnerships Conducting surveys and wildfire risk assessments requires a commitment, but the results provide empirical evidence to help shape local programs and initiatives. COLORADO

41. Future Research Expand inquiry across southwest counties of Colorado. Additional work is planned in Archuleta, La Plata, Montezuma, and San Miguel Counties. COLORADO San Miguel County Montrose County Gunnison County Delta County Montezuma County La Plata County Archuleta County Past Current Future

42. IDENTIFYING WILDFIRE RISK Pairing Homeowner and Professional Risk Assessment James Meldrum – james.meldrum@colorado.edu Hannah Brenkert-Smith - hannahb@colorado.edu Chris Barth – cbarth@blm.gov Patricia Champ – pchamp@fs.fed.us Travis Warziniack - twwarziniack@fs.fed.us Lilia Falk– wrwc.lilia@gmail.com