Social Values for Attributes at Risk from Wildfire in Northwest Montana
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2009 SOCIAL VALUES FOR ATTRIBUTES AT RISK FROM WILDFIRE IN NORTHWEST MONTANA Derek Timothy O'Donnell The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation O'Donnell, Derek Timothy, "SOCIAL VALUES FOR ATTRIBUTES AT RISK FROM WILDFIRE IN NORTHWEST MONTANA" (2009). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 1304. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/1304 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SOCIAL VALUES FOR ATTRIBUTES AT RISK FROM WILDFIRE IN NORTHWEST MONTANA By Derek Timothy O’Donnell B.A. Economics, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, 2007 B.S. Wildlife Biology, University of Montana, Missoula Montana, 2007 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Resource Conservation The University of Montana Missoula, Montana Fall, 2009 O’Donnell, Derek Timothy, M.Sc., December 2009 Resource Conservation Social Values for Attributes at Risk from Wildfire in Northwest Montana Committee Chair: Dr. Tyron J. Venn Annual fire management and suppression expenditures by the USDA Forest Service have dramatically increased in recent years, and exceeded $1 billion in the fire seasons of 2000, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. These escalating management costs can largely be attributed to the Forest Services’ efforts to protect private property in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) at the expense of other market and non-market attributes. Due to increasing development within the WUI, climate change, and excessive fuel loading from decades of successful fire suppression, it is likely that fire suppression costs will continue to rise if current wildfire management priorities are not modified. Previous economic models utilized by the Forest Service to support wildfire management decisions only accommodated market values like private structures and timber, however, new models are being developed by the Forest Service to account for various market and non-market values at risk from wildfire in order to more efficiently allocate fire management funds. The objective of this study was to derive marginal social values for several non-market attributes at risk from wildfire in Flathead County, Montana, for inclusion in wildfire management decision- support models. This was achieved by conducting a choice modeling study in Flathead County. It was found that a typical resident of Flathead County has a value for structure protection of only $0.28 per home, compared to $1.90 for a one percentage point reduction in the chance that wildfire affects their recreation opportunities, $3.23 for a one day reduction in the number of moderate smoky days, $13.36 for a one day reduction in the number of unhealthy smoky days, $13.39 for a 1,000 acre reduction of timberland burned by wildfire, and $4.52 for a 1 percentage point reduction in the number of large (greater than 5,000 acres) fires that burn on the landscape. Responses to the questionnaire also revealed that 74.3% of respondents believe that it is the responsibility of the individual homeowner, not fire management agencies, if a home burns because of a wildfire. These findings reveal that there is a small social value for private property protection in Flathead County compared to other non-market attributes, and suggest that current fire management, which places emphasis on private property protection, is not socially efficient for Flathead County. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am greatly indebted to Dr. Tyron Venn, not only for being instrumental in helping me complete this research and thesis, but for all the support he provided throughout the duration of the research and for being such a great colleague and friend. You know I wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for you, Ty, and I greatly appreciate everything you’ve done for me. Here’s to hoping our paths will meet again in Africa some day. Another gargantuan sized thank you goes out to Dr. Douglas Dalenberg. Without the invaluable guidance and assistance that Doug provided at multiple stages throughout this research, this thesis would not have been possible. I would also like to thank Dr. Ronald Wakimoto for being on my committee and for bringing me up to snuff on my fire ecology. Of course, a huge thanks is in order for Dr. David Calkin, the USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, and the USDA McIntire Stennis for providing the funding for this research! I greatly appreciate the knowledgeable advice and GIS/database support that Dave and the rest of the RMRS provided as well, especially during the initial development of the survey and the later stages of analysis. Lastly, I would like to thank my loving partner for all the continued support, for keeping a clean house for me to come home to, and for always having a pot of coffee ready for me in the morning. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii Table of Contents iv-viii List of Figures ix List of Tables x 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Research Objectives and Justification 3 1.2. Layout of the Thesis 4 2. The Study Area: Flathead County 6 2.1. Flathead County Demographic Information 6 2.2. History and Economy 11 2.3. Land Tenure and Natural Amenities 14 2.4. Forest Types, Fire Regimes, and Recent Fires 18 2.5. Summary 23 3. Wildfire Economics and Policy 24 3.1. Effects of Fire on Forest Resources 24 3.1.1. Air Quality 25 3.1.2. Water Quality 27 3.1.3. Soil 28 3.1.4. Vegetation 29 3.1.5. Wildlife 31 3.1.6. Recreation 32 3.1.7. Infrastructure 33 3.2. Wildfire Policy 34 3.2.1. History and Evolution of Wildfire Policy 34 3.2.2. Current Wildfire Policy and Policy Failures 37 3.3. Wildfire Economics 39 iv 3.3.1. Economic Decision Support Tools 39 3.3.2. Wildfire Economics Research Review 40 3.3.2.1. Recreation Studies 40 3.3.2.2. Private Property and Fuel Reductions 42 3.3.2.3. Wildlife 44 3.3.2.4. Smoke and Air Quality 45 3.3.2.5. Water Quality, Flooding and Erosion 46 3.3.2.6. Timber 47 3.4. Summary 49 4. Non-Market Valuation and the Choice Modeling Methodology 50 4.1. Overview of Non-Market Valuation Techniques 50 4.1.1. Contingent Valuation 53 4.2. The Choice Modeling Method 57 4.3. Advantages and Limitations of Choice Modeling 59 4.3.1. Advantages of the Choice Modeling Method 60 4.3.1.1. Robust Data 60 4.3.1.2. Framing 60 4.3.1.3. Familiar Decision Procedure 62 4.3.1.4. Strategic Response 62 4.3.1.5. Experimental Design 63 4.3.1.6. Benefit Transfer 63 4.3.1.7. Data Stacking 66 4.3.1.8. Inclusion of the Public 66 4.3.1.9. Valuation of Cultural Heritage and Other Non-Use Values 67 4.3.2. Disadvantages of the Choice Modeling Method 67 4.3.2.1. Cognitive Burden 67 4.3.2.2. Framing Challenges 68 4.3.2.3. Technical Complexity 69 4.3.2.4. Assumptions 70 4.4. Implementation of a Choice Modeling Study 70 v 4.4.1. Characterizing the Decision Problem 71 4.4.2. Attribute and Level Selection 72 4.4.3. Experimental Design Development 73 4.4.4. Questionnaire Development 76 4.4.5. Sample Size 81 4.4.6. Model Estimation 81 4.4.7. Policy Analysis 85 4.5. Examples of Choice Modeling Studies That Have Supported Natural Resource Management 88 4.5.1. Recreation Studies 88 4.5.2. Water Quality and Supply Management 90 4.5.3. Wildlife and Biodiversity Conservation 92 4.5.4. Soil Erosion, Agriculture, and Farming 92 4.5.5. Waste Management 93 4.5.6. Green Products and Services 93 4.5.7. Environmental Quality Applications 93 4.6. Summary 94 5. Application of Choice Modeling to Northwestern Montana 95 5.1. Attribute and Level Selection 95 5.1.1. Number of Homes Requiring Evacuation 96 5.1.2. Acres of Timberland Burned by Wildfire 97 5.1.3. Number of Smoky Days During Fire Season 98 5.1.4. Effect on Recreation Opportunities 99 5.1.5. Forest and Watershed Health 100 5.1.6. Cost to the Respondent 101 5.2. Survey Design, Testing, and Data Collection 104 5.3. Geospatial Data and Variable Descriptions 107 5.4. Choice Models Fitted to Survey and Geospatial Data 110 5.4.1. Model Estimation 110 5.4.2. Welfare Estimation 111 vi 5.4.3. Mini-Models 112 5.5. Summary 113 6. Social Tradeoffs Between Market and Non-Market Forest Resources in Northwest Montana 114 6.1. Responses to Warm-Up and Demographic Questions 114 6.1.1. Residential and Attitudinal ‘Warm-Up’ Questions 114 6.1.2. Choice Set ‘Closing’ Questions 120 6.1.3. Demographic Questions 122 6.2. Choice Modeling Results 127 6.2.1. Base Model 132 6.2.2. Full Model 132 6.2.3. TWTP Model 133 6.3. Total Willingness to Pay for Attributes at Risk from Wildfire in Flathead County 136 6.4 Summary 139 7. Implications for Economically Efficient Wildfire Management and Policy in Flathead County 140 7.1.