IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v176y2025ics1389934125001169.html

Wildfire risk information sources and the acceptability of fuels treatments near select WUI communities in the Western United States

Author

Listed:
  • Wallace, Kelly
  • Brenkert-Smith, Hannah
  • Champ, Patricia A.
  • Meldrum, James R.
  • Webster, Grant
  • Taniguchi, Christine
  • Goolsby, Julia B.
  • Donovan, Colleen
  • Wagner, Carolyn
  • Barth, Christopher M.
  • Kuehn, Josh
  • Wittenbrink, Suzanne

Abstract

Fuels treatments intended to reduce fuel loads and improve forest health on public lands offer one way to reduce wildfire hazards in the wildland-urban interface (WUI), where the natural and built environments meet. However, for fuels treatment implementation to be successful, it must comply with regulatory and scientific standards and be supported by local communities, as lack of acceptance can lead to alterations, delays, or abandonment. To foster support, public land managers can engage directly with residents in communities near treatment areas through various communication channels or engage indirectly through trusted local partners. This research uses paired household survey and observed parcel-level wildfire risk assessment data to investigate wildfire risk information sources' role in the acceptability of fuels treatment approaches on public lands near select WUI communities in the Western United States. We find that information deemed useful from sources is often positively correlated with acceptability, while information deemed not useful is sometimes negatively correlated. Local sources of information tend to be widely received, perceived as useful, and have positive correlations with acceptability, while nonlocal sources vary in their receipt, perceived usefulness, and correlations with acceptability. Public land managers, particularly those from national organizations, may benefit from leveraging and aligning messaging with trusted local partners. Developing fuels treatment plans that consider existing local sentiments may facilitate public trust in managers and acceptability of treatments.

Suggested Citation

  • Wallace, Kelly & Brenkert-Smith, Hannah & Champ, Patricia A. & Meldrum, James R. & Webster, Grant & Taniguchi, Christine & Goolsby, Julia B. & Donovan, Colleen & Wagner, Carolyn & Barth, Christopher M, 2025. "Wildfire risk information sources and the acceptability of fuels treatments near select WUI communities in the Western United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:176:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125001169
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103537
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934125001169
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103537?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clifford W. Scherer & Hichang Cho, 2003. "A Social Network Contagion Theory of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 261-267, April.
    2. Toddi Steelman & Sarah McCaffrey & Anne-Lise Velez & Jason Briefel, 2015. "What information do people use, trust, and find useful during a disaster? Evidence from five large wildfires," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 76(1), pages 615-634, March.
    3. Andrew R. Binder & Dietram A. Scheufele & Dominique Brossard & Albert C. Gunther, 2011. "Interpersonal Amplification of Risk? Citizen Discussions and Their Impact on Perceptions of Risks and Benefits of a Biological Research Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 324-334, February.
    4. Brenkert-Smith, Hannah & Goolsby, Julia B. & Champ, Patricia A. & Meldrum, James R. & Donovan, Colleen & Wagner, Carolyn & Barth, Christopher M. & Forester, Chiara & Wittenbrink, Suzanne, 2023. "The Devil is in the Details: Variation in Public Acceptance of Fuels Treatments Across Western Fire-Prone Communities," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), September.
    5. Hannah Brenkert‐Smith & Katherine L. Dickinson & Patricia A. Champ & Nicholas Flores, 2013. "Social Amplification of Wildfire Risk: The Role of Social Interactions and Information Sources," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 800-817, May.
    6. Minas, James P. & Hearne, John W. & Martell, David L., 2014. "A spatial optimisation model for multi-period landscape level fuel management to mitigate wildfire impacts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(2), pages 412-422.
    7. Huggett Jr., Robert J. & Abt, Karen L. & Shepperd, Wayne, 2008. "Efficacy of mechanical fuel treatments for reducing wildfire hazard," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(6), pages 408-414, August.
    8. Allen Molina & Joseph Little & Stacy Drury & Randi Jandt, 2021. "Homeowner Preferences for Wildfire Risk Mitigation in the Alaskan Wildland Urban Interface," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-11, October.
    9. Jeffrey R. Masuda & Theresa Garvin, 2006. "Place, Culture, and the Social Amplification of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 437-454, April.
    10. Kaval, Pamela & Loomis, John & Seidl, Andy, 2007. "Willingness-to-pay for prescribed fire in the Colorado (USA) wildland urban interface," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 928-937, May.
    11. Czaja, Michael R. & Bright, Alan D. & Cottrell, Stuart P., 2016. "Integrative complexity, beliefs, and attitudes: Application to prescribed fire," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 54-61.
    12. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christopher D. Wirz & Michael A. Xenos & Dominique Brossard & Dietram Scheufele & Jennifer H. Chung & Luisa Massarani, 2018. "Rethinking Social Amplification of Risk: Social Media and Zika in Three Languages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2599-2624, December.
    2. Yu‐Ru Lin & Drew Margolin & Xidao Wen, 2017. "Tracking and Analyzing Individual Distress Following Terrorist Attacks Using Social Media Streams," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(8), pages 1580-1605, August.
    3. Yanchun Chen & Gaogao Peng & Yuwei Tu & Tianzhi Ren, 2025. "A Study of Risk Communication and Perceptions of Official and Public Agendas in the Context of Emergencies: Based on the Itaewon Stampede," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(2), pages 21582440251, May.
    4. Bhuiyan, Tanveer Hossain & Moseley, Maxwell C. & Medal, Hugh R. & Rashidi, Eghbal & Grala, Robert K., 2019. "A stochastic programming model with endogenous uncertainty for incentivizing fuel reduction treatment under uncertain landowner behavior," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 699-718.
    5. Venu Kandiah & Andrew R. Binder & Emily Z. Berglund, 2017. "An Empirical Agent‐Based Model to Simulate the Adoption of Water Reuse Using the Social Amplification of Risk Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 2005-2022, October.
    6. Esmaeil Mohammadian Bishe & Hossein Afshin & Bijan Farhanieh, 2023. "Modified Quasi-Physical Grassland Fire Spread Model: Sensitivity Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-23, September.
    7. Th. Zagas & D. Raptis & D. Zagas & D. Karamanolis, 2013. "Planning and assessing the effectiveness of traditional silvicultural treatments for mitigating wildfire hazard in pine woodlands of Greece," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 65(1), pages 545-561, January.
    8. Yuquan Qu & Diego G. Miralles & Sander Veraverbeke & Harry Vereecken & Carsten Montzka, 2023. "Wildfire precursors show complementary predictability in different timescales," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-9, December.
    9. Moshe Maor, 2025. "Towards a theory of policy bubbles," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 58(2), pages 403-424, June.
    10. Campbell, Robert M. & Venn, Tyron J. & Anderson, Nathaniel M., 2016. "Social preferences toward energy generation with woody biomass from public forests in Montana, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 58-67.
    11. Jinyu Chen & Yan Yang & Qian Ding & Julan Xie, 2025. "Top Management Team Connectedness and Greenwashing," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(4), pages 3725-3743, October.
    12. Tianzhuo Liu & Huifang Jiao, 2018. "Insights into the Effects of Cognitive Factors and Risk Attitudes on Fire Risk Mitigation Behavior," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 52(4), pages 1213-1232, December.
    13. Araya-Córdova, P.J. & Vásquez, Óscar C., 2018. "The disaster emergency unit scheduling problem to control wildfires," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 311-317.
    14. Katherine L. Dickinson & Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Greg Madonia & Nicholas E. Flores, 2020. "Risk interdependency, social norms, and wildfire mitigation: a choice experiment," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 1327-1354, August.
    15. Roopam Shukla & Ankit Agarwal & Kamna Sachdeva & Juergen Kurths & P. K. Joshi, 2019. "Climate change perception: an analysis of climate change and risk perceptions among farmer types of Indian Western Himalayas," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 103-119, January.
    16. Varela, Elsa & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 91-104.
    17. aus dem Moore, Nils & Brehm, Johannes & Breidenbach, Philipp & Ghosh, Arijit & Gruhl, Henri, 2022. "Flood risk perception after indirect flooding experience: Null results in the German housing market," Ruhr Economic Papers 976, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    18. Mozumder, Pallab & Raheem, Nejem & Talberth, John & Berrens, Robert P., 2008. "Investigating intended evacuation from wildfires in the wildland-urban interface: Application of a bivariate probit model," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(6), pages 415-423, August.
    19. Valente, Marieta & Fernandes, Maria Eduarda & Pinto, Lígia Maria Costa, 2024. "Crowdfunding or crowdsourcing time: Exploring the willingness of private citizens to help prevent forest fires," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    20. Pamela Kaval, 2007. "The Link between Perceived and Actual Wildfire Danger: An Economic and Spatial Analysis Study in Colorado (USA)," Working Papers in Economics 07/13, University of Waikato.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:176:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125001169. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.