Estimating the Value of Fuels Treatment on Colorado ’ s Front Range

Urban and Wildland-urban interface area residents of Larimer and Boulder counties in Northern Colorado were surveyed using a dichotomous choice contingent valuation approach in order to compare the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for fuels treatment programs of counties with different demographic attributes and the WTP of different geographical groups within each county. This paper reports preliminary analysis of the data, with a more detailed analysis to follow in the near future. Initial Komolgorov-Smirnov goodness-of-fit analysis indicates that the distribution of positive responses is not significantly different for urban and WUI residents, nor is it different for Larimer and Boulder county residents. INTRODUCTION Colorado’s Front Range has been classified as one of the nation’s most critical wildlandurban interface (WUI) situations. This area is at high risk for severe wildfire with the possibility of substantial property and resource damage as well as high human risks. In the last 10 years the population of Colorado has increased by more than 30 percent. Eighty percent of that growth has occurred along the Front Range, where many people are moving into interface areas. There is also much concern regarding the financial and economic viability of treating fuels along the Front Range, as timber is of small diameter, growing cycles are long and commercial values are low. This research is a contingent valuation (CVM) study of the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for various fuels treatments by residents of the Front Range. Fire management activities and costs are currently relevant topics of discussion and to our knowledge no contingent valuation study has been done on this topic in this geographic area, nor have any been done that compare WTP values of urban residents and interface residents. This study will compare the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for fuels treatment programs of residents of Larimer and Boulder counties. It will also compare the WTP for fuels treatment programs of urban residents and WUI residents. Specifically, we will compare the WTP for prescribed burning and thinning programs of residents within each of the counties (Urban versus WUI) and between counties (Urban versus Urban and WUI versus WUI). Contingent valuation methodology (CVM) has commonly been used by economists to value natural resources within a recreational context, such as in the valuation of fishing sites, wilderness areas, and wildlife viewing. It has also been used in valuing risk reducing activities, as related to hazardous waste, transportation safety, and drinking water quality. Recently, with increased discussion of the costs and benefits of fire and fuels management programs, contingent valuation has been applied to determining the value of fuels treatment programs, which reduce the risks associated with wildfire. Wildland-urban interface residents of a Michigan county that had been affected by fire were found to be wiling to pay over $57 per year for additional government investments in fire protection (Winter and Fried 2001). In a Florida study that compared English and Spanish speakers, respondents were found to be willing to pay a mean of about $185 per year for prescribed fire treatments and about $161 per year for thinning treatments (Bair 2001). This research will provide some insight into differences between Urban 1 Graduate student and Professor of Forest Economics, Fire Economics Laboratory, Department of Forest, Rangeland and Watershed Stewardship, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.