Wildfire Risk and Climate Change: The Influence on Homeowner Mitigation Behavior in the Wildland–Urban Interface

Abstract

This project examines the sensitivity of behavior and attitudes regarding wildfire risk to perceptions of drought and climate change impacts, and documents the current state of homeowner risk mitigation effort in Clear Creek County, Colorado. Survey results demonstrate that homeowners have a fairly accurate understanding of the impact of climate change and other environmental risk factors, and that the majority have undertaken the most obvious risk mitigation investments, such as pruning vegetation around the home. Perception of climate and weather as risk factors has a significant impact on risk perception and concern about wildfire but is not a determinant of advanced mitigation effort. Further mitigation effort primarily relates to the value homeowners place on amenities associated with their house and their perception of the impact of neighboring lands mitigation.

Keywords:

• climate change
• household survey
• mitigation
• natural hazards
• wildfire

Notes

^a Some mitigations were repeated by the respondent even if they existed at time of purchase.

Note. All variables are from survey questions unless otherwise indicated. Scales used are:

• (1) 1 = very low/fairly low, 2 = fairly high, 3 = very high.

• (2) 1 = not at all concerned/not very concerned, 2 = fairly concerned, 3 = very concerned.

• (3) 0 = vegetation management, 1 = vegetation management + additional mitigation/s.

• (4) 0 = slightly increase risk, 1 = increase risk (see index variable description).

• (5) 1 = lowest, 2 = low, 3 = moderate, 4 = high, 5 = very high (source: Colorado State Forest Service).

• (6) 1 = yes, 0 = no.

• (7) 1 = not at all important, 2 = not very important, 3 = fairly important, 4 = very important.

• (8) 1 = yes, 0 = no (source: Clear Creek County Assessor's office).

• (9) 1 = not at all a motivation, 2 = not a significant motivation, 3 = somewhat of a motivation, 4 = significant motivation.

• (10) 1 = not at all a reason, 2 = not a big reason, 3 = somewhat of a reason, 4 = big reason.

• (11) 0 = not effective, 1 = effective (collapsed from 4-point scale).

• (12) 1 = no responsibility, 2 = some responsibility, 3 = moderate responsibility, 4 = greatest responsibility.

^a Sample communities are not readily comparable to Census data because they do not match Census defined areas. The numbers here are derived from 2000 Census Block Group data and provide an approximation of population characteristics.

∗Reference category.

∗Reference category.

∗Reference category.