Christopher M. Barth

Living in a tinderbox: wildfire risk perceptions and mitigating behaviours

The loss of homes to wildfires is an important issue in the USA and other countries. Yet many homeowners living in fire-prone areas do not undertake mitigating actions, such as clearing vegetation, to decrease the risk of losing their home. To better understand the complexity of wildfire risk-mitigation decisions and the role of perceived risk, we conducted a survey of homeowners in a fire-prone area of the front range of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. We examine the relationship between perceived wildfire risk ratings and risk-mitigating behaviours in two ways. First, we model wildfire risk-mitigation behaviours as a function of perceived risk. Then, we model wildfire risk-mitigation behaviours and perceived risk simultaneously. The results of the simultaneous model suggest that perceived risk and wildfire risk-mitigating behaviours are jointly determined. By correctly specifying the relationship between risk perceptions and mitigating behaviours, we are better able to understand the relationship between other factors, such as exposure to a wildfire-mitigation program and wildfire risk-mitigating behaviours. We also find that having a wood roof, as well as homeowner age, income and previous experience with living in a fire-prone area, are associated with wildfire risk-mitigating behaviours.

Homebuyers and wildfire risk: A Colorado Springs case study

In recent years, the threat that wildfire poses to homes has received much attention in both the mainstream press and academic literature. However, little is known about how homebuyers consider wildfire risk during the home-purchase process. In the context of a unique wildfire education program, we consider two approaches to examining the relationship between wildfire risk and home purchases. Results from a market-level analysis using home sales price data are compared to household survey results. The household survey validates the market-level analysis and provides further insight into homebuyers and wildfire risk. Specifically, we find that while homebuyers prefer locations near dangerous topography, they also prefer less flammable building materials. However, most homebuyers were unaware of wildfire risk when they made their home-purchase decisions.

Where you stand depends on where you sit: Qualitative inquiry into notions of fire adaptation

Wildfire and the threat it poses to society represents an example of the complex, dynamic relationship between social and ecological systems. Increasingly, wildfire adaptation is posited as a pathway to shift the approach to fire from a suppression paradigm that seeks to control fire to a paradigm that focuses on “living with” and “adapting to” wildfire. In this study, we seek insights into what it means to adapt to wildfire from a range of stakeholders whose efforts contribute to the management of wildfire. Study participants provided insights into the meaning, relevance, and use of the concept of fire adaptation as it relates to their wildfire-related activities. A key finding of this investigation suggests that social scale is of key importance in the conceptualization and understanding of adaptation for participating stakeholders. Indeed, where you stand in terms of understandings of fire adaptation depends in large part on where you sit.

Living with wildfire in Log Hill Mesa, Colorado

Over the past 50 years, Colorado has experienced an increase in the number and size of wildfires on its public and private lands. Nationwide, expenditures on wildfire suppression have increased for decades and now are measured in the billions of tax dollars. Current trends in climate changes, fuel accumulation from past wildfire suppression, and expansion of the wildland-urban interface (WUI), which means more development within areas of heightened wildfire potential, all suggest that continued increases in the costs of wildfires are likely.

Wildland–Urban Interface Residents’ Relationships with Wildfire: Variation Within and Across Communities

Abstract Social science offers rich descriptions of relationships between wildland–urban interface residents and wildfire, but syntheses across different contexts might gloss over important differences. We investigate the potential extent of such differences using data collected consistently in sixty-eight Colorado communities and hierarchical modeling. We find substantial variation across responses for all considered measures, much of which occurs at the community-level. Our results show that many aspects of relationships with wildfire meaningfully differ both within and across communities. Our analysis suggests that some wildfire social science results will be relatively consistent across communities, whereas others will not, and this study contributes evidence to broader efforts for understanding which is which. As such, it provides important guidance for transferring the lessons of wildfire social science studies across contexts, and for practitioners who seek to understand the breadth of viewpoints within the communities with which they work.

Living with wildfire in Delta County, Colorado: cross-community comparisons

This research note summarizes two linked datasets for four WUI communities in Delta County, Colorado. These data include a general population survey of residents in the community and an assessment of the physical characteristics of all residential properties in the community. This report summarizes the study design and focuses on the extent to which collected data vary across the four communities. It also provides information regarding knowledge, concern, and activities related to wildfire and wildfire risk mitigation among residents of each of the four communities, as well as the results of the corresponding assessment performed by a wildfire specialist for those same properties. The main finding of this study is that, despite the four communities being in close proximity of each other and all belonging to the same county in western Colorado, many measured variables vary significantly across communities. What variables did or did not vary across communities is complex and does not follow easy generalizations, suggesting the importance of specific, community-level context when researching or trying to influence perspectives on wildfire risk and wildfire risk mitigation actions. The information provided here may be useful to practitioners tasked with understanding and influencing the relationship of WUI residents with wildfire risk and to policymakers who must make decisions about wildfire suppression and risk mitigation.