1

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

United States Department of Agriculture

Living with Wildfire in Delta County, Colorado: 

Cross-Community Comparisons

James R. Meldrum, Christopher M. Barth, Lilia Colter Falk, 

Hannah Brenkert-Smith, Travis Warziniack, and Patricia A. Champ

Citation

Meldrum, James R.; Barth, Christopher, M.; Colter Falk, Lilia; Brenkert-Smith, Hannah; 

Warziniack, Travis; Champ, Patricia A. 2015. Living with wildfire in Delta County, 

Colorado: cross-community comparisons. Res. Note. RMRS-RN-67. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 33 p.

Authors

James R. Meldrum is a research associate at the University of Colorado Boulder, Institute 

of Behavioral Science, Boulder, Colorado; Christopher M. Barth is a fire mitigation and 

education specialist at the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Southwest District Fire Management, Montrose, Colorado; Lilia Colter Falk is director 

of the West Region Wildfire Council, Montrose, Colorado; Hannah Brenkert-Smith is 

a research associate at University of Colorado Boulder, Institute of Behavioral Science, 

Boulder, Colorado; Travis Warziniack is a research economist at the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado; 

Patricia A. Champ is a research economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Forest Rocky Mountain Research Note

Service Research Station RMRS-RN-67 June 2015
2

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

Introduction

Wildfire risk in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) is a significant problem in 

Colorado, as in much of the United States. Wildfire risk mitigation refers to activities performed proactively, before a hazard event occurs, that reduce the chances 

and/or consequences of a wildfire. Actions taken by individual residents toward 

mitigating their properties’ wildfire risks can play an important role in the effort 

to reduce the catastrophic effects of wildfires both to society as a whole and to the 

residents themselves. However, the relationships of wildfire risk mitigation actions 

to attitudes, experiences, and other considerations are complex (Brenkert-Smith and 

others 2006, 2012), and WUI residents may be defined by subpopulations that differ widely in perspectives about wildfire issues, both within (Raish and others 2007) 

and across different communities (Carroll and others 2014; Champ and others 

2011a,b; Meldrum and others 2013).

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 (see appendix A for a copy of the assessment tool and 

appendix B for a copy of the survey, with descriptive statistics for all survey questions). 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. 

Data collection was similar to that performed in the Log Hill Mesa community in 

Ouray County, Colorado, and reported in a previous research note (Meldrum and 

others 2013). 

As detailed below, respondents in the four Delta County communities differ by 

community on many measured variables, including some demographic factors (e.g., 

age and part-year residence) but not others (e.g., income and education), some 

attitudes (e.g., whether wildfires are an important part of the natural forest and 

whether people can control them) but not others (e.g., reasons for not mitigating 

and whether people living in the WUI are a problem in terms of wildfire risk), and 

some sources for receiving wildfire information (e.g., local fire departments and 

neighborhood groups) but not most others. In other words, many but not all of the 

social data depend on local community context. Further, the distributions of property risk levels differ across the communities, both in terms of the risk levels assessed 

by a wildfire specialist and the risk levels perceived by survey respondents. In addition, the data demonstrate a “risk perception gap” between the wildfire specialist’s 

and residents’ assessments of property-level wildfire risk consistent with that found 

in Log Hill Mesa (Meldrum and others 2013, in review). The findings of this report 

can facilitate long-term monitoring, management, and educational practices related 

to the mitigation of wildfire risk in WUI communities like those in Delta County. 

Similarly, they can inform the conduct of related research in the WUI. In particular, 
3

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

the significant differences found in many variables across communities underscore 

the importance of understanding community-specific contexts when developing 

management and educational programs.

Methods

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Southwest District Fire Management program and the West Region Wildfire Council (WRWC) seek to encourage residents 

of western Colorado to mitigate wildfire risk on their properties. As part of this effort, WRWC conducts wildfire risk assessments of private properties and administers 

household surveys in the communities where the wildfire risk assessments have been 

completed. This report focuses on the linked data collected for communities in Delta 

County, Colorado. 

Study Area: Delta County

The data described here were collected in four of the five Fire Protection Districts 

(FPD) in Delta County, corresponding to the towns of Cedaredge, Crawford, 

Hotchkiss, and Paonia. A “community” can be defined in many ways and at many 

different hierarchical levels, with implications for the extent to which individuals’ 

data are aggregated. In this report, we analyze these FPDs as four distinct communities because many of our results offer potential insights for wildfire risk management 

and education at that level. However, subdividing each FPD based on self-identified 

communities or homeowners associations, for example, might further highlight 

some cross-community differences and obscure others.1

Located in central-western Colorado, Delta County consists of 1,149 mi2

 ranging 

in elevation from 4,758 to 11,396 ft above sea level. The Delta County Community 

Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP Delta County 2011) describes much of the 

county as being at high or very high risk from wildfire, noting that the 2001 Federal 

Register included these four FPDs on its list of “urban wildland interface communities within the vicinity of federal lands that are at high risk from wildfire” (p. 20). 

The county has a semiarid climate with abundant sunshine, frequent winds, low 

humidity, and less than 8 inches of rainfall in the average year. Typical vegetation 

includes pinyon-juniper woodlands, Gambel oak, sagebrush, and invasive cheatgrass, 

and the county saw 141 reported ignitions between 1999 and 2008 (117 of which 

were from lightning).

Wildfire Specialist Assessment

In the summer of 2013, WRWC conducted a wildfire risk assessment of every 

privately owned residential parcel with a home larger than 800 ft2

 in the four 

communities. This risk assessment, described in more detail below, is based on 

the Home Ignition Zone concept (Cohen 2000) and has been developed by BLM 

1 For example, the Grand Mesa Resort community within Cedaredge FPD has a substantially 

higher proportion of part-year versus full-time residents than the remainder of Cedaredge 

FPD, and its residents have significantly less direct experience with wildfire on average.
4

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

Fire Mitigation Specialist Christopher Barth and collaborators over a series of 

implementations.2 In it, parcels are assessed by a wildfire specialist on 10 attributes 

related to wildfire risk and given an overall wildfire risk rating that addresses not 

only structure survivability during a wildfire event but also considerations such 

as firefighter access and evacuation potential. By design, these ratings reflect a 

property’s risk relative to the overall level of risk within its community rather than 

reflect an absolute risk rating. A complete copy of the assessment tool is provided in 

appendix A.

Properties were primarily assessed from public roadways and on site when permission was granted. WRWC sought permission to enter properties for this risk 

assessment through numerous requests, including direct mailing invitations to 

public meetings, mailed postcards, a newspaper ad, and posted flyers. For some 

interested residents, the wildfire specialist not only performed the standard 10-item 

assessment but also provided in-person, step-by-step analysis of their property’s 

wildfire risk with the opportunity to ask questions or describe the specifics of their 

property. 

When permission to enter was not granted, viewing from public roadways was supplemented with information from the Delta County Assessor’s website and publicly 

accessible aerial imagery. In most cases, this combination of sources overcame any 

limitations from not being able to enter properties, especially for variables such as 

defensible space and background fuels. However, the variables for decking materials 

and the distance to other combustibles are not as easily seen by alternative methods, 

so when these characteristics could not be directly observed, the specialist had to 

make assumptions. As a default, when a characteristic was unobservable without 

access, the assessment defaulted to higher risk categories, such as assuming the presence of a wooden deck and other combustibles within 10 ft of the structure. These 

assumptions could bias the professional assessments toward higher levels of risk in 

relevant categories. 

Between June 20 and July 18, 2013, WRWC completed these assessments for all 

1,921 primary residential structures in the four communities, including structures 

not identified in county assessor records but discovered only through on-theground analysis of the district.3

 All assessments pertain to the state of the property 

at the time of assessment; the rating assigned to a property could change over time, 

2

 The Home Ignition Zone concept was developed by Jack Cohen at the Fire Science Lab in 

Missoula, Montana, and by research from the Institute for Business and Home Safety. The 

assessment as implemented here is an amalgam of that concept, Christopher Barth’s work 

with the Colorado Springs Fire Department and other entities, Claire Hays’ work on the 

Wildfire Hazard Information Extraction (WHINFOE) model, and Boulder County’s Wildfire 

Hazard Identification and Mitigation System (WHIMS).

3

 Note that county assessor records did not perfectly match the results of on-the-ground 

assessment, leading to different numbers for household surveys mailed and professional 

assessments completed. Data collection efforts allowed professional assessments to match 

actual conditions, and only matched pairs of resident surveys and professional assessments 

were analyzed for a possible risk perception gap.
5

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

reflecting that assessed property characteristics could change over time owing to 

homeowner behaviors such as maintenance (e.g., grass mowing and needle clearing), moving combustible materials (e.g., porch furniture and propane grills), or 

retrofitting the home (e.g., installing fire-resistant roofing or decking). 

Resident Survey

In a companion effort, the WRWC conducted a household survey of residents 

of all 1,479 properties in the four communities, as identified by county assessor 

records. The survey contained seven sections designed to collect information about 

respondents’ housing situation, experience with wildfire, knowledge of wildfire risk, 

attitudes about wildfire, social interactions, information sources, incentives and 

barriers toward undertaking mitigation actions, risk attitudes, and demographic 

characteristics. The survey also asked residents to assess their property based on the 

same 10 attributes related to wildfire risk that were assessed by the wildfire specialist, as previously described. A copy of the survey instrument can be found in its 

entirety in appendix B, including descriptive statistics of responses for all questions.

Residents were mailed a letter inviting them to attend a public meeting about the 

assessment and survey on June 6, 2013; addresses returned as undeliverable were 

removed from the original mailing list. On July 20, 2013, remaining residents were 

mailed a letter inviting them to take the survey either online with an individual 

identification code or by returning the enclosed paper copy in the postage-paid 

envelope. Those who did not respond were sent another copy of the survey on 

September 3, 2013, along with a reminder of the option to submit an online version of the identical survey. To further encourage survey participation, a third and 

final copy of the survey was mailed to non-respondents on January 15, 2014. 

Household Survey Results

Of the 1,479 addresses attempted, 138 letters were returned as non-deliverable. 

Residents in 681 households responded to the survey for an overall response rate of 

51 percent (681/[1,479 – 138]). Community-specific response rates ranged from 

45 percent (Crawford) to 51 percent (Cedaredge). Only 15 percent of responding 

households (104) used the online option, ranging by community from 12 percent 

(Crawford) to 16 percent (Cedaredge and Paonia). The results summarized in the 

rest of this report are based on analysis of both the resident surveys and the wildfire 

specialist assessments; this section focuses on resident survey results.

Characteristics of the Survey Respondents and Their Residences

Basic respondent characteristics are shown in table 1. Overall, respondents ranged 

from 27 to 95 years old, with a median age of 65 years. Half (52 percent) reported 

being retired versus about one-third (31 percent) employed full-time. Fewer females 

(38 percent) responded than males. Based on Census data (U.S. Census Bureau 

2013), respondents’ education levels were generally higher than those for the Delta 

County population as a whole (51 percent of respondents were at least college 

graduates compared to 19 percent for Delta County overall). About one-fifth (22 
6

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

percent) of respondents indicated having completed an advanced degree. The 

median reported household income was between $50,000 and $74,999, higher 

than the Census-reported median income for Delta County households ($42,786) 

but consistent with that for households statewide ($58,244). The vast majority 

of respondents owned their residence (95 percent), a few lived in a mobile home 

(6 percent), and about one-quarter indicated living there less than year-round 

(23 percent). Typical respondents had lived in their current residence for about 

13 years (median move-in year is 2000) and expected to stay there for at least 

5 more years (16 percent expect to move within 5 years). Move-in dates suggest that 

many did not build their own homes because the median year in which respondents’ homes were built was 1988. Note that the targeted population (i.e., residents 

of the four communities) is a subset of Delta County overall (1,479 households 

versus 12,661 households county-wide) and is not intended to be representative of 

the county as a whole. In addition, the difference in ownership rates between the 

census (ranging from 54 to 71 percent by community) and the survey results (between 92 and 99 percent by community) paired with the methodology of mailing 

surveys to the mailing addresses noted in county assessor records, rather than sites’ 

physical addresses, suggests that some survey respondents might be property owners 

who own, but do not live in, the properties within the communities in question.

As shown by the p-values of the statistical tests shown in the final column of 

table 1, many demographic variables do not statistically differ across communities. 

In contrast, age, retirement, residence in a mobile home, part-year resident status, 

and the year built were all significantly different (p < 0.05) across communities. 

Notable differences include older respondents and more retirees in Cedaredge, no 

mobile homes in Paonia, roughly twice the proportion of part-year residents in 

Cedaredge, and a 15-year spread of median build dates (ranging from Paonia as 

oldest to Crawford and Hotchkiss as newest). 

Table 1—Comparison of demographics across communities based on survey results.

All 

respondents Cedaredge Hotchkiss Crawford Paonia p-valuea

n (respondents) 681 336 134 65 123 n/a

Response rate (percent) 51 51 49 45 48 0.839b

Age (median) 65 66 63 63 64 0.044c

Female (percent) 38 36 32 43 44 0.178b

College graduate (percent) 51 52 45 51 60 0.117b

Retired (percent) 52 60 46 44 42 0.001b

Income bracket (median) $50 to 75k $50 to 75k $50 to 75k $50 to75k $50 to 75k 0.270d

Own (versus rent) (percent) 95 97 93 92 94 0.069e

Mobile home (percent) 6 7 8 6 0 0.003b

Part-year resident (percent) 23 31 15 16 12 <0.001b

Move-in year (median) 2000 2000 1999 2001 2000 0.534d

Year built (median) 1988 1987 1992 1993 1979 0.002d

Plan to move within 5 years (percent) 16 16 12 22 14 0.479e

a Null hypothesis of no difference across communities; p-values from tests as indicated.

b chi-squared test; c

One-way ANOVA; d Kruskal Wallis test; e Fisher’s exact test.
7

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

Relationships with Wildfire

Characteristics of residents’ relationships with wildfire, including their levels of 

awareness and concern, amount of direct or indirect experience with wildfire, and 

attitudes toward wildfire suppression, all may influence their willingness to address 

wildfire risk. Similarly, because insurance is intended to protect against financial 

losses from damage to property, it is possible that homeowners insurance, and the 

companies that administer it, play a relevant role in residents’ perspectives on wildfire risk. This section presents data collected to address these concepts. 

Awareness and Concern for Wildfire 

Respondents reported a fairly high level of awareness and concern about wildfire 

risk, and this did not vary statistically by community (p > 0.05). Irrespective of community, most were aware of wildfire risk when buying or first renting their residence 

(34 percent were “somewhat aware” and 50 percent were “very aware”) and about 

half agreed with the statement “your property is at risk of wildfire” (39 percent agree, 

10 percent strongly agree). Only 13 percent reported they “don’t know” how close 

a wildfire has come to their property. About two-thirds indicated that they were 

concerned about wildfire risk affecting their residence (64 percent), and a similar 

proportion claimed to have an evacuation plan in case of wildfire (63 percent). 

Experience with Wildfire 

As shown in table 2, many survey respondents reported personal experience with 

wildfire, with many significant differences across communities. A few respondents reported damage to their current residences from wildfire (1 percent in 

Cedaredge and Hotchkiss) or smoke (4 percent in Hotchkiss, 3 percent in Paonia, 

Table 2—Respondent experience with wildfires.

All 

respondents Cedaredge Hotchkiss Crawford Paonia p-valuea

n (respondents) 681 336 134 65 123

Residence damage from previous wildfires

No damage 98% 99% 95% 98% 97% 0.009

Smoke damage only 1% 0% 4% 2% 3%

Fire and smoke damage 1% 1% 1% 0% 0%

Wildfire on property? (yes) 10% 8% 17% 13% 7% 0.025

Closest distance of wildfire to property

Wildfire within <2 miles 48% 48% 54% 40% 45% 0.317b

Wildfire within 2-10 miles 38% 36% 35% 45% 42%

Wildfire within >10 miles 14% 16% 11% 15% 13%

Reverse 911 call? (yes) 7% 10% 6% 0% 3% 0.003

Evacuated due to wildfire? (yes) 10% 12% 10% 2% 10% 0.064

Lived in other place with risk? (yes) 28% 28% 29% 29% 27% 0.971

Know someone who evacuated? (yes) 54% 51% 59% 42% 63% 0.018

Know someone who had damage? (yes) 32% 26% 35% 37% 42% 0.008

a

 Null hypothesis of no difference across communities; p-values from Fisher’s exact test except where noted.

b

 p-value from Kruskal Wallis test.
8

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

and 2 percent in Crawford). Overall, 10 percent reported knowing they have 

had a wildfire on their property, with community-specific levels ranging from 7 

percent (Paonia) to 17 percent (Hotchkiss); between 40 percent (Crawford) and 

58 percent (Cedaredge) reported that a wildfire has been within 2 miles of their 

property. However, only 7 percent had ever received a reverse 911 call to evacuate 

or prepare for evacuation because of wildfire (ranging from 0 percent in Crawford 

to 10 percent in Cedaredge) and only 10 percent had ever evacuated because of 

wildfire (ranging from 2 percent in Crawford to 12 percent in Cedaredge). About 

one-quarter (28 percent) had previously lived in other areas at risk of wildfire. In 

addition, many reported second-hand wildfire experience in terms of knowing 

someone who has been evacuated because of wildfire (54 percent overall, ranging 

from 42 percent in Crawford to 63 percent in Paonia) or knowing someone whose 

home was damaged by wildfire (32 percent overall, ranging from 26 percent in 

Cedaredge to 42 percent in Paonia).

Attitudes Toward Wildfire and Wildfire Suppression

Attitudes about wildfire and wildfire suppression were measured with respondents’ 

level of agreement with numerous statements (1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = 

neutral, 4 = disagree, and 5 = strongly disagree). Table 3 depicts the percentage of 

respondents agreeing (1 or 2) or disagreeing (4 or 5) with each statement, ordered 

from most to least overall agreement. Overall, more than half of all respondents 

agreed that wildfires that threaten human life or property should be put out and 

that saving homes should be a priority over saving forests in a wildfire, while also 

Table 3—Respondent attitudes toward wildfire and wildfire suppression

All 

respondents Cedaredge Hotchkiss Crawford Paonia p-valuea

n 681 336 134 65 123

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wildfires that threaten human life Disagree 2 2 4 0 3 0.008

should be put out. STATE3 (n = 649) Agree 90 92 90 89 86

Wildfires are a natural part of the Disagree 5 7 4 3 1 <0.001

balance of a healthy forest/ Agree 80 76 89 85 83

ecosystem. STATE6 (n = 646)

Wildfires that threaten property Disagree 4 3 5 3 6 0.001

should be put out. STATE4 (n = 643) Agree 77 83 76 68 67

During a wildfire, saving homes Disagree 13 11 20 8 15 0.679

should be a priority over saving Agree 67 68 60 69 70

forests. STATE5 (n = 649)

Naturally occurring wildfire is not Disagree 22 23 15 28 18 0.286

the problem; people who choose Agree 43 40 45 45 46

to live in fire prone areas are the

problem. STATE1 (n = 640)

With proper technology, we can Disagree 41 36 50 34 50 0.008

control most wildfires after they Agree 29 31 28 34 21

have started. STATE2 (n = 646)

a

 Null hypothesis of no difference across communities; p-values from Kruskal Wallis test using all five response levels 

(1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree); percentage for middle level (3 = neutral) not shown.
9

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

agreeing that wildfires are a natural part of a healthy ecosystem. Two of the statements (STATE5 and STATE1) did not significantly vary across communities, 

whereas the remaining four (STATE3, STATE6, STATE4, and STATE2) did, as 

determined by Kruskal Wallis tests on all five response levels. Respondents from 

Cedaredge were more likely to agree that wildfires threatening homes should be 

put out and less likely to agree that wildfires are a natural part of the balance of a 

healthy forest, whereas respondents from Hotchkiss and Paonia were more likely 

to disagree that wildfires can be controlled after they have started. More respondents disagreed versus agreed with only one of the statements in this section: “with 

proper technology, we can control most wildfires after they started.”

Homeowners Insurance and Wildfire 

Irrespective of their community, only 3 percent of respondents did not have homeowners insurance, yet few reported receiving information about reducing wildfire 

risk from their homeowners insurance company (9 percent). More than half of 

respondents (60 percent) did not know if wildfire risk affects their homeowners insurance in any way and another 18 percent said that none of the insurance 

statements applied to them; overall, 82 percent were not aware of any negative 

impact on their homeowners insurance as a result of living in a wildfire-prone area. 

The only insurance-related question that differed statistically across communities 

(Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.001) pertained to whether respondents pay a higher 

premium because of wildfire risk (13 percent overall, from 5 percent in Paonia 

to 9 percent in Hotchkiss and Crawford, to 18 percent in Cedaredge). Very few 

(5 percent) of respondents had policies that require wildfire risk mitigation, and 

3 percent have had policies canceled or refused for renewal because of wildfire risk. 

Risks

It is often posited that risk perceptions play an important role in residents’ decisions about whether and how to mitigate wildfire risk, but there are many ways to 

think about risk. Results covered in this section pertain to different aspects of how 

residents understand and think about risk.

General Attitudes Toward Risk 

People vary in the extent to which they find taking risks acceptable. To explore 

residents’ general orientations toward risk, respondents were asked about their 

risk attitudes with a simple measure developed by Dohmen and others (2011). 

Respondents were instructed to report their willingness to take risks in general 

and in five separate risk domains (driving a car, financial matters, sports or leisure, 

career decisions, and health choices) on a scale from 0 (not at all willing to take 

risks) to 10 (very willing to take risks). On average, respondents saw themselves as 

slightly risk averse (slightly less willing than willing to take risks: mean 4.2), but 

all possible choices were represented in results. Assuming normally distributed responses, responses pertaining to risk in general differ from those for all specific risk 

domains (matched t-tests, p < 0.001) except for career decisions (p = 0.195), with 

respondents reporting greater risk aversion in each individual domain as compared 
10

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

to their “general” risk aversion, on average. Further, there is no evidence to suggest 

that risk ratings differed by community (one-way ANOVA tests, p-values range 

from 0.357 to 0.868 for each risk domain variable).

Sources of Information About Wildfire Risks

There are many possible sources of information about wildfire risk, which can vary 

in content, quality, and other potentially relevant characteristics. To understand 

what sources are informing residents of these communities, the survey asked 

respondents to select from a list the sources from which they have received information about reducing the risk of wildfire. Respondents reported receiving this 

information from a variety of sources, although one in five (21 percent) claimed 

to have not received any information about wildfire. Reported information 

sources did not differ statistically across communities with the exception of local 

fire department and neighborhood groups (Fisher’s exact tests, p < 0.001). Many 

respondents reported learning from the local fire department (37 percent), but this 

varied from 20 percent in Crawford, to 33 percent in Cedaredge and Paonia, to 

62 percent in Hotchkiss. Other information sources included the media (34 percent), WRWC (26 percent), and government agencies such as the Colorado State 

Forest Service (15 percent) or the U.S. Forest Service or BLM (13 percent). Onefifth (20 percent) reported learning about reducing wildfire risk from neighbors, 

friends, or family members, although half reported having discussed wildfire issues 

with a neighbor (50 percent). Few had learned about reducing wildfire risk from 

neighborhood groups such as the HOA or neighborhood watches (8 percent), 

although Cedaredge stands out at 12 percent versus 2 to 3 percent for other 

communities.

Perceptions of Wildfire Risks

Wildfire risks perceptions—either pertaining to the potentially negative consequences of a wildfire or the likelihood of one occurring—are often considered 

a prerequisite for a homeowner to take action to address that risk. To better 

understand residents’ relevant thoughts, the survey included multiple measures of 

risk perceptions. Responses to these questions demonstrate that a small proportion of respondents (15 percent) perceived a 50 percent or greater chance that a 

wildfire would occur on their property in the year of the survey (and only 3 percent reported the chance as greater than 50 percent), whereas half of respondents 

(51 percent) thought that the chance was 10 percent or less. On average, respondents estimated the chance at 21 percent, with no significant differences across 

communities (Kruskal Wallis test, p = 0.972). In contrast, nearly one in three 

(31 percent) estimated that there is a 50 percent or greater chance that their home 

would be damaged or destroyed if a fire did occur on his or her property, including 

7 percent who estimated that as 90 percent or greater. Also in contrast, respondent 

expectations about a fire damaging or destroying their homes varied significantly 

by community (Kruskal Wallis test, p<0.001), ranging from mean estimates of a 

20 percent chance in Hotchkiss to 29 percent in Paonia, 35 percent in Crawford, 

and 37 percent in Cedaredge.
11

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

The joint probability of personally experiencing the negative impacts of a wildfire 

is a combination of the chance that a wildfire occurs on one’s property and the 

chance that a wildfire on the property would destroy or damage one’s home.4

Based on this calculation, we find that half of the respondents implicitly estimated 

the joint probability of experiencing a wildfire that damages their homes in the 

year of the survey at 3 percent or lower, whereas fewer than 2 percent of respondents estimated that joint probability as 50 percent or greater.

Expected Consequences of Wildfire 

For more detail into respondents’ expectations about how a wildfire would personally affect them, the survey also asked respondents to rate the likelihood of certain 

impacts if a wildfire did occur on their property. Impacts were rated on a scale from 

1 (“Not likely”) to 5 (“Very likely”). Consistent with previous results, most of these 

responses differed across communities, as detailed in table 4, with respondents in 

Hotchkiss generally considering most consequences to be less likely than respondents from elsewhere. Half of all respondents (49 percent) thought it was unlikely 

they personally would put the fire out (ranging from 37 percent in Hotchkiss to 

56 percent in Cedaredge), whereas 31 percent thought that was likely (ranging from 

26 percent in Cedaredge to 43 percent in Hotchkiss). Further, more than half of 

respondents (56 percent) expected the fire department to save their home in a wildfire, although only 43 percent in Crawford thought that was likely, whereas up to 

68 percent in Hotchkiss thought so. Overall, 58 percent expected that their trees and 

landscape would burn, but smaller proportions expected smoke damage (51 percent) 

or physical damage (41 percent) to their home or for their home to be destroyed 

(25 percent). More than two-thirds (69 percent) thought it unlikely that their community water supply would be threatened.

Mitigation of Property-Level Wildfire Risk

Respondents in all communities demonstrated a high level of willingness to undertake wildfire mitigation on their properties, as shown by the agreement with 

four related statements (STATE11, STATE13, STATE14, and STATE15). Few 

(6 percent) agreed that they “live here for the trees and will not remove any of them 

to reduce wildfire risk.” Similarly, most (85 percent) disagreed with the claim that 

“managing the wildfire danger is a government responsibility, not [theirs]” and that 

“actions taken by homeowners to reduce the risk of loss due to wildfire are not effective” (82 percent). Responses do not vary statistically across communities (Kruskal 

Wallis tests, p-values range from 0.201 to 0.666 by question).

When asked about the density of the vegetation on their property on a scale from 

1 = “very sparse” to 5 = “very dense,” respondents reported a reduction from an 

average perceived density rating of 3.1 at the time they moved in to a current average 

rating of 2.5. Asked the same about neighboring properties, respondents reported 

4

 The joint probability (i.e., wildfire risk) is the product of the unconditional probability of 

wildfire (i.e., probability of wildfire) and the probability of damage, conditional on wildfire 

(i.e., consequence of wildfire).
12

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

Table 4—Respondents’ estimation of the likelihood of wildfire consequences

If there is a wildfire on your property, how likely do you think it is that the following would occur?

All 

respondents Cedaredge Hotchkiss Crawford Paonia p-valueb

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

You would put the fire out LACT1 Unlikelya 49 56 37 47 45 <0.001

(n = 636) Likelya 31 26 43 28 33

The fire department would save your Unlikelya 24 29 13 37 18 0.002

home. LACT2 (n = 638) Likelya 56 56 68 43 54

There would be some smoke damage Unlikelya 23 20 35 20 19 0.013

to your home. LACT3 (n = 632) Likelya 51 55 40 52 52

There would be some physical damage Unlikelya 31 27 48 25 29 <0.001

to your home. LACT4 (n = 637) Likelya 41 46 30 48 36

Your home would be destroyed. Unlikelya 57 52 74 52 57 <0.001

LACT5 (n = 637) Likelya 25 31 14 31 18

You would suffer financial losses due Unlikelya 63 66 70 59 49 0.014

to the loss of business/income on Likelya 27 25 19 31 35

your property. LACT6 (n = 632)

Your trees and landscape would burn. Unlikelya 21 19 29 17 21 0.007

LACT7 (n = 646) Likelya 58 61 47 67 54

Your pets would be harmed (include Unlikelya 74 76 75 60 74 0.142

non-income generating livestock). Likelya 14 14 12 13 15

LACT8 (n = 629)

Your neighbors’ homes would be Unlikelya 35 30 49 34 36 0.007

damaged or destroyed. Likelya 41 45 35 36 38

LACT9 (n = 635)

Your community water supply would Unlikelya 69 64 77 71 69 0.037

be threatened. LACT10 (n = 634) Likelya 21 23 15 24 19

The fire would spread to nearby public Unlikelya 39 42 43 30 33 0.099

lands. LACT11 (n = 638) Likelya 44 41 39 58 48

a

 Response levels condensed from five categories (1 = “not likely” to 5 = “very likely”) to two (1, 2 = “Unlikely” and 4, 5 = 

“Likely”).

b

 Null hypothesis of no difference across communities; p-values from Kruskal Wallis test using all five response levels (1 = “not 

likely” to 5 = “very likely”).

a much smaller decrease, from an average of 3.1 to an average of 3.0. Responses 

to VEG1 and VEG2, which pertain to initial and current vegetation levels on the 

respondent’s own property, did not statistically differ across communities (Kruskal 

Wallis tests, p = 0.052 and p = 0.096, respectively). However, responses to VEG3 

and VEG4, which pertain to initial and current vegetation levels perceived on most 

of one’s neighboring properties, did vary by community (Kruskal Wallis tests, p = 

0.003 and p = 0.040), respectively), with respondents in Cedaredge and Crawford 

generally rating neighbors’ properties as having denser vegetation than did respondents in Hotchkiss and Paonia. 

In addition, close to half (47 percent) reported knowing that at least one of their 

neighbors has taken actions to reduce the risk of wildfire on his or her property; of 

those, 37 percent have worked with their neighbors for that purpose on either their 

or their neighbors’ properties. In contrast, 35 percent reported knowing that at least 

one neighbor was not taking action to reduce wildfire risk. However, few agreed that 
13

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

they “don’t take action [on wildfire risk] because adjacent properties are not treated 

leaving [their] actions ineffective” (1 percent strongly agree, 3 percent agree). None 

of these neighbor action variables differ across communities.

When respondents were asked about factors that keep them from undertaking 

actions to reduce the wildfire risk on their property, top responses included the 

physical difficulty of doing the work (40 percent), financial expenses (33 percent), 

and time it takes to do the work (27 percent). A smaller proportion of respondents 

reported barriers of not wanting to change the look of their properties (19 percent), 

a perceived lack of effectiveness of risk reduction actions (13 percent), or HOA 

restrictions on cutting trees (7 percent). Although only 11 percent cited a lack of 

awareness of wildfire risk as a barrier keeping them from undertaking action, higher 

percentages of respondents reported that other types of information were barriers: 

26 percent felt constrained by a “lack of information about, or options for, removal 

of slash or other materials from thinning trees and other vegetation;” and 27 percent 

felt constrained by a “lack of specific information on how to reduce wildfire risk 

on [their] property.” Only one of the measured barriers statistically differed by 

community (Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.017): 10 percent of Cedaredge respondents 

noted HOA restrictions on cutting trees versus 2 percent in Hotchkiss, 5 percent in 

Crawford, and 6 percent in Paonia.

Similar to the perceived barriers to undertaking wildfire risk mitigation on their 

property, more than half of respondents (52 percent) reported that they would be 

encouraged to reduce the wildfire risk on their property by help with thinning vegetation or removal of debris or financial assistance (45 percent). About two-thirds (64 

percent) reported a willingness to participate in a cost-sharing grant program that 

would help cover costs up to the estimated total cost of approximately $1,000 per 

acre to remove vegetation in an effort to reduce wildfire risk, with an average willingness to contribute around $360 per acre for that work (with the grant therefore 

paying the remaining average of $640 per acre). Although the percentage who would 

participate did not vary across communities (chi-squared test, p = 0.252), the average amount respondents were willing to pay ranged from about $300 in Crawford 

and Hotchkiss to $360 in Cedaredge and $430 in Paonia (Kruskal Wallis test, p = 

0.019). Again reflecting the importance of information to respondents, 57 percent 

of respondents also reported that “specific information about what needs to be done” 

would encourage them to reduce the wildfire risk on their properties, and 22 percent 

reported that “a list of recommended contractors...to do the work” would encourage 

them.

Results: Resident and Professional Wildfire Risk Ratings

To assess the level of agreement between the way residents and an external observer 

view the wildfire risk of properties, residents were asked their perception of the same 

set of 10 wildfire risk factors in the survey as the wildfire specialist assessed. This 

section reports descriptive statistics for the two sets of measures (shown in table 5), 

referring to these as resident (from respondents; answers to the household surveys) 
14

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

and professional (from the wildfire specialist’s assessments) risk ratings. The “points” 

column of table 5 depicts the relative weighting of each item in contributing to the 

property’s overall risk score; points reflect the relative importance of each factor in 

contributing to a property’s overall risk. A maximum risk rating for all 10 categories 

corresponds to a total of 595 points. The “resident survey” column presents the 

percentage of respondents selecting each response and the “professional assessment” 

column presents the percentage of parcels (for which a survey was returned) placed 

in each response category by the wildfire specialist.

Resident survey responses varied significantly across communities (Kruskal Wallis 

tests, p < 0.05) for 5 out of 10 attributes (ROADS, TOPOGRAPHY, FUELTYPE, 

DSPACE, and OTHER), whereas all assessed measures except ROOF varied significantly across communities (Kruskal Wallis tests, p < 0.05) (details not shown). In 

addition, the final column of table 5 reports the p-value of a statistical test that the 

two distributions differ (Wilcoxon signed rank sum, which non-parametrically tests 

the null hypothesis of the two variables coming from the same distribution), as well 

as which dataset reported higher average risk levels when they differed. Consistent 

with previous research in other communities (Meldrum and others 2013, 2014), 

results demonstrate the presence of a complex risk perception gap between respondents and the wildfire specialist. Specifically, respondents on average reported higher 

risk levels for all access risk factors and the balcony, deck, or porch material, whereas 

the specialist reported higher risk levels for the building exterior material and for 

distances to dangerous topography, to defensible space, and to woodpiles and other 

combustibles. 

Each property’s overall wildfire risk was assessed by adding the points for all 10 

evaluated risk factors. Adding the resident and professional results creates “weighted 

sum” resident and professional overall risk scores, respectively, on which some characteristics (e.g., ROOF) have a larger influence than others (e.g., ROADS). These 

sums were grouped into predetermined risk categories: low (25–150 points), moderate (151–175), high (176–270), very high (271–330), and extreme risk (331–595). 

In addition, the household survey asked respondents to rate their property’s wildfire 

risk among the same five categories. The question was asked twice: once before 

asking about the individual property attributes, and again after asking about them, 

noting the second time that this rating might be based on the 10 factors previously 

discussed. Respondent were not informed of the point assignments for each attribute. These “direct questions” offer additional measures of the resident’s perceived 

assessment of overall risk, and comparison of before and after shows the extent to 

which the individual attribute questions influenced responses.

As table 6 shows, the most common professionally assessed category was “high risk,” 

whereas the most common resident-assessed category was “moderate risk.” Statistical 

testing demonstrates that the weighted sum scores did not vary between respondents 

and the specialist (Wilcoxon signed rank sum, p = 0.772), nor did responses to the 

direct question change significantly before and after asking about individual attributes (Wilcoxon signed rank sum, p = 0.116). In contrast, both direct question 
15

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

Table 5—Resident and professional risk ratings for 10 individual property attributes.

Resident Professional

Category Criteria Values Points survey assessment p-valuea

Percent

Access risk Structure address posted Posted and reflective 0 79 97 <0.001

factors at driveway entrance? Posted, NOT reflective 5 12 2 Survey

(ADDRESS) Not visible from road 15 9 2

How many roads could Two or more roads in/out 0 52 60 0.002

be used to get out of One road in/out 10 48 40 Survey

community? (ROADS)

Width of driveway Greater than 24 ft wide 0 6 52 <0.001

(DRIVEWAY) Between 20 and 24 ft 5 30 27 Survey

 wide

Less than 20 ft wide 10 64 21

Background Distance to dangerous More than 150 ft 0 70 70 0.072

risk factors topography (ridge, steep 50 to 150 ft 30 18 11 Assessment

drainage, or narrow Less than 50 ft 75 12 19

canyon) (TOPOGRAPHY)

Predominant background Light (grasses) 25 22 26 0.117

fuel type in neighborhood Moderate (light brush 50 53 41

(FUELTYPE) and/or isolated, small

trees)

Heavy (dense brush 75 25 34

or timber, down and 

dead fuel)

Structural Roofing material (ROOF) Tile, metal, asphalt 0 97 98 1.000

risk factors Wood (shake shingle) 200 3 2

Building exterior Non-combustible 0 33 20 <0.001

(EXTERIOR) siding (e.g., stucco, 

cement, brick)

Log, heavy timbers 20 13 14 Assessment

Wood, vinyl, or wood 60 54 66

 shake

Balcony, deck, or None/non-combustible 0 22 45 <0.001

porch (DECK) Combustible material 20 78 55 Survey

Defensible Defensible Space (CSFS More than 150 ft 0 24 20 <0.001

space risk 6.302 Standards; “closest 30 to 150 ft 50 41 39 Assessment

factors distance from your house 10 to 30 ft 75 27 27

to overgrown, dense, or Less than 10 ft 100 8 15

unmaintained vegetation”)

(DSPACE)

Location of woodpiles None or >30 ft from 0 51 21 <0.001

and combustibles (e.g., structure

light flashy vegetation, 10-30 ft from structure 10 38 36 Assessment

propane tanks, trees, <10 ft from structure 30 11 43

firewood, trash) (OTHER)

a

 Null hypothesis of no difference across communities; p-values from the Wilcoxon signed rank sum test. If the null 

hypothesis is rejected, dataset with higher average risk rating is noted.
16

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

responses significantly differed from both weighted sum ratings (Wilcoxon signed 

rank sum, p < 0.001 for all four combinations). In other words, even though respondents consistently rated some individual attributes as higher risk and others as lower 

risk versus the professional assessment (as shown in table 5) these differences tend to 

average out when aggregated with the pre-assigned weights. However, when asked 

directly about overall wildfire risk, respondents tended to rate their properties with 

lower risk than the specialist. 

Finally, table 7 compares overall risk ratings across communities. It reports community-average ratings for the three overall measures, each of which varies significantly 

across communities as shown by the p-values in the final column. As shown by the 

“Assessment weighted sum,” the professional assessed the wildfire risk of properties 

in Paonia substantially higher than in other communities, with Cedaredge earning 

the lowest average overall risk rating. In contrast, respondents in Cedaredge rated 

their properties risks higher, on average, than respondents in other communities for 

both the “Survey direct question (after)” and the “Survey weighted sum” (which is 

constructed from the points system that respondents did not observe). Crawford is 

unique in that its average “Survey direct question (after)” response was as high as for 

Cedaredge, yet its “Survey weighted sum” is the lowest of all communities. 

Table 6—Comparison of risk categorizations across different elicitations.

Survey Survey

Assessment Survey direct direct

weighted weighted question question

Points sum sum (after) (before)

- - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - -

Low risk 25–150 29 27 26 25

Moderate risk 151–175 10 10 49 49

High risk 176–270 39 39 19 20

Very high risk 271–330 15 6 4 5

Extreme risk 331–595 7 18 2 2

Table 7—Average overall risk ratings by community.

All respondents Cedaredge Hotchkiss Crawford Paonia p-valuea

Assessment weighted sum 206 195 200 208 242 >0.001

Survey weighted sum 189 195 182 169 189 0.048

Survey direct question (after)b 1.1 1.2 0.8 1.2 1.0 >0.001c

a

 Null hypothesis of no difference across communities; p-values from one-way ANOVA tests except where noted.

b

 Categorized from 0 (low risk) to 4 (extreme risk).

c

 Kruskal Wallis test.
17

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

Discussion and Conclusions

Understanding and encouraging residents in the WUI to play a role in mitigating wildfire risk on their properties requires understanding residents’ knowledge, 

concern, and activities related to that risk, as well as recognizing that these factors 

might vary from one community to the next. The main finding from 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. Risk ratings as assessed either by the professional or 

by the respondents vary significantly from place to place, as do past experiences with 

wildfires and expected consequences in the event of a wildfire. In contrast, barriers 

and incentives pertaining to wildfire risk mitigation do not tend to vary at the community level, nor does the lack of much interaction with insurance companies about 

wildfire risks. Local fire departments are more common information sources in some 

communities than others, as are neighborhood organizations such as HOAs. In general, 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. In addition, this study provides a baseline for further analysis of the perspectives of these communities and of differences in risk understandings and related 

variables across different communities within the WUI.

References

Brenkert-Smith, H.; Champ, P.A.; Flores, N. 2006. Insights into wildfire mitigation decisions among wildland-urban interface residents. Society and Natural 

Resources. 19(8): 759–768.

Brenkert-Smith, H.; Champ, P.A.; Flores, N. 2012. Trying not to get burned: 

Understanding homeowners’ wildfire risk-mitigation behaviors. Environmental 

Management. 50: 1139–1151.

Carroll, M.S.; Paveglio, T.; Ellison, A.; Abrams, J.; Moseley, C. 2014. Community 

diversity and wildfire risk: An archetype approach to understanding local capacity 

to plan for, respond to, and recover from wildfires. Ecosystem Workforce Program 

Working Paper Number 50. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. 20 p.

Champ, P.A.; Brenkert-Smith, H.; Flores, N. 2011a. Living with wildfire in Boulder 

County, Colorado, 2007. Res. Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 26 p.
18

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

Champ, P.A.; Brenkert-Smith, H.; Flores, N. 2011b. Living with wildfire in Larimer 

County, Colorado, 2007. Res. Note RMRS-RN-48WWW. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 27 p.

Cohen, J.D. 2000. Preventing disaster: home ignitability in the wildland-urban 

interface. Journal of Forestry. 98(3): 15–21.

Delta County. 2011. Delta County, Colorado: Community Wildfire Protection 

Plan. 164 p.

Dohmen, T.; Falk, A.; Huffman, D.; Sunde, U.; Schupp, J.; Wagner, G.G. 2011. 

Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association. 9(3): 522–550.

Meldrum, J.R.; Barth, C.M.; Falk, L.C.; Brenkert-Smith, H.; Warziniack, T.; 

Champ, P. 2013. Living with wildfire in Log Hill Mesa, Colorado. Res. Note 

RMRS-RN-66. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 34 p.

Meldrum, J.R.; Champ, P.A.; Brenkert-Smith, H.; Warziniack, T.; Barth, C.; Falk, L. 

[in press]. Understanding gaps between the risk perceptions of WUI residents and 

wildfire professionals. Risk Analysis.

Raish, C.; Gonzalez-Caban, A.; Martin, W.; Martin, I.M.; Bender, H. 2007. 

Cultural variation in public perception concerning fire use and management. In: 

Daniel, T.C.; Carroll, M.; Moseley, C.; Raish, C.; eds. People, fire, and forests: a 

synthesis of wildfire social science. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 

70–88.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. 2008–2012 American community survey 5-year estimates. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/. (April 3, 2015).
19

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

Appendix A: Professional Assessment Tool
20

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

Appendix B: Resident Survey Instrument

Living with Wildfire in Delta County

www.COwildfire.org

(n=681)

Key: Red ALL CAPS are variable names

n = number of observations

Blue numbers are percent responses (might not total 100% due to rounding)

Based on all data collected by May 20, 2014
21

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

What is the West Region Wildfire Council?

The West Region Wildfire Council (WRWC) was established in 2007 as a 

collaborative effort to support interagency efforts to develop and implement 

plans to better mitigate the threat of catastrophic wildland fire to the communities 

and natural resources in the Colorado counties of Delta, Gunnison, Hinsdale, 

Montrose, Ouray, and San Miguel. WRWC members represent private citizens, 

local, county, state, and federal agencies with an interest in, and a commitment to 

addressing wildfire risk across the region. Members have worked with homeowners, 

fire districts, and counties to develop Community Wildfire Protection Plans in the 

region. The WRWC provides communities with education about wildfire risk and 

assistance with implementing steps to reduce wildfire risk through fuels reduction 

projects and the creation of defensible space.

Project Description and Disclosures

This research study explores how residents and owners of property in Delta County 

respond to wildfire risk. Participation in this study is entirely your choice. There is 

no cost for participation in this study. You will not be paid for participation in this 

study. We will maintain the privacy of your data.
22

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

OWNRENT (n=675)

1.1 Do you own or rent your current residence? (Circle one number)

95% 0 Own 

5% 1 Rent 

HOMETYPE (n=673)

1.2 How would you describe your current residence? (Circle one number)

6% 0 Mobile home or trailer 

94% 1 Single-family home 

1% 2 Multi-family dwelling (e.g., townhouse, condo, apartment)

MONTHS (n=662)

1.3 How many months per year do you live at your current residence? (Fill in the blank)

MEAN = 10 months; MEDIAN = 12 months

FULLTIME (n=654)

1.4 In what year did you move to your current residence? (Fill in the blank)

MEAN = 1996; MEDIAN = 2000

YRBUILD (n=633)

1.5 In what year was your current residence originally built? (Fill in the blank)

MEAN = 1980; MEDIAN = 1988

MOVE1 (n=661)

1.6 Do you expect to move away and/or sell your current residence in the next five years? 

(Circle one number)

84% 0 No

16% 1 Yes

RISKAWAR (n=674)

1.7 How aware of wildfire risk were you when you bought or decided to rent your current 

residence? (Circle one number)

13% 0 Not aware

34% 1 Somewhat aware

50% 2 Very aware

2% 3 Don’t remember 

Section 1: In this first section of the survey, we ask about your residence in the [Paonia] community in Delta County, CO. If you own multiple homes, please answer the following questions 

with respect to your [Paonia] residence. We refer to this home as your current residence. 
23

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

RISKRATE2 (n=667)

1.8 How would you rate your current residence’s wildfire risk? (Circle one number)

25% 0 Low Risk 

49% 1 Moderate Risk

20% 2 High Risk

5% 3 Very High Risk 

2% 4 Extreme Risk 

CONCERNED (n=657)

1.9 Are you concerned about wildfire affecting your current residence? (Circle one number)

36% 0 No

64% 1 Yes

FIRE (n=669)

2.1 What is the closest distance (as a crow flies) a wildfire has come your current residence? 

(Circle one number)

9% 0 There has been a wildfire on your property

32% 1 Less than 2 miles away but not on your property

32% 2 2 to 10 miles away

13% 3 More than 10 miles away

13% 4 Not sure

DAMAGE (n=671)

2.2 Has your current residence ever been damaged by a wildfire or smoke from a wildfire? 

(Circle one number)

98% 0 No

1% 1 Yes, your current residence suffered only smoke damage

1% 2 Yes, your current residence suffered fire and smoke damage

EVACPLAN (n=669)

2.3 Do you currently have an evacuation plan for your household in the event a wildfire 

threatens your current residence? (Circle one number)

37% 0 No

63% 1 Yes

REVERSECALL (n=670)

2.4 Have you ever received a reverse 911 call to evacuate or prepare to evacuate your current 

residence due to wildfire? (Circle one number)

93% 0 No

7% 1 Yes

Section 2: In this section, we ask about your experience, if any, with wildfire. 
24

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

EVACUATED (n=669)

2.5 Have you ever evacuated from your current residence due to a wildfire or threat of a 

wildfire? (Circle one number)

90% 0 No

10% 1 Yes

PREVRISK (n=670)

2.6 Have you ever owned a home (in Colorado or elsewhere), other than your current 

residence, that was located in an area at risk of wildfire? (Circle one number)

72% 0 No

28% 1 Yes

KNOWEVAC (n=670)

2.7 Do you know anyone (in Colorado or elsewhere) who has been evacuated from his or her 

home due to a wildfire? (Circle one number)

46% 0 No

54% 1 Yes

KNOWDAM (n=670)

2.8 Do you know anyone whose home has been damaged or lost due to a wildfire? (Circle 

one number)

68% 0 No

32% 1 Yes

2.9 Which of the following statements are true regarding homeowners insurance for your current residence? (Circle all that apply)

(n=672) 1 = circled; 0 = not circled; % reported is % circled

3% 0 An insurance company has canceled or refused to renew your policy because of 

wildfire risk. INSURE3

13% 1 You pay a higher premium for your homeowners insurance because of wildfire 

risk. INSURE4

5% 2 Your homeowners insurance company requires wildfire risk mitigation as a condition of your policy. INSURE5

5% 3 You do not have homeowners insurance. INSURE6

60% 4 You have homeowners insurance but do not know if wildfire risk impacts it in any 

way. INSURE7

18% 5 None of the above apply to you. INSURE8
25

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

ROOFTYPE (n=660)

3.1 What type of roof does your current residence have? (Circle one number)

3% 0 Wood (shake shingles)

97% 1 Tile, metal, or asphalt shingles

SIDETYPE (n=659)

3.2 What type of exterior siding covers the majority of your current residence?

(Circle one number)

33% 0 Stucco, cement, brick, stone, or other noncombustible siding

13% 1 Log or heavy timbers

54% 2 Wood or vinyl siding

BALCONY (n=667)

3.3 Does your current residence have a balcony, deck, or porch? (Circle one number)

11% 0 No

89% 1 Yes  Is any part of the balcony, deck, or porch made of wood? (Circle

one number) BALCONY2 (n=586)

13% 0 No 

87% 1 Yes

DRIVEWAY (n=660)

3.4 How wide is your driveway at the narrowest point? (Circle one number)

64% 0 Less than 20 feet (one car wide)

30% 1 20 – 24 feet (two cars wide)

6% 2 More than 24 feet (more than two cars wide)

DRIVEWAY2 (n=659)

3.5 How long is your driveway? (Circle one number)

83% 0 Less than 0.25 miles long

17% 1 0.25 miles or longer

HOMENUM (n=666)

3.6 Is your house number posted at the end of your driveway? (Circle one number)

8% 0 No

92% 1 Yes  Is the posted number reflective? (Circle one number) REFLECT (n=571) 

13% 0 No

87% 1 Yes

Section 3: In this section, we ask about the characteristics of your current residence and the 

area near your current residence. These characteristics are related to the risk of wildfire to your 

property.
26

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

CLOSEVEG (n=667)

3.7 What is the closest distance from your home to overgrown, dense, or 

unmaintained vegetation? (Circle one number)

8% 0 Less than 10 feet 

27% 1 10 – 30 feet 

41% 2 31 – 150 feet 

24% 3 More than 150 feet 

COMBUST (n=669)

3.8 What is the closest distance from your home to combustible items other 

than vegetation such as lumber, firewood, a propane tank, hay bales, or other 

materials that could easily ignite? (Circle one number)

11% 0 Less than 10 feet

38% 1 10 – 30 feet

51% 2 More than 30 feet

RIDGE (n=666)

3.9 What is the closest distance from your home to a ridge, steep drainage, or 

narrow canyon? (Circle one number)

12% 0 Less than 50 feet

18% 1 50 – 150 feet

70% 2 More than 150 feet

ROADS (n=665)

3.10 If the road you use to access your current residence was blocked due to a 

wildfire, is there another road you could use to get out of your community? 

(Circle one number)

48% 0 No

52% 1 Yes

DOMVEG (n=662)

3.11 Which of the following best describes the dominant vegetation on your 

property and those properties immediately surrounding you? (Circle one 

number)

22% 0 Grasses 

53% 1 Light brush and/or isolated trees (e.g., grass/sage mix with some

pinion-juniper and/or isolated oak and ponderosa pine)

25% 2 Dense brush and/or dense trees (e.g., continuous pinion-juniper and/or 

dense oak with ponderosa pine)
27

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

RISKRATE (n=670) 

3.12 Homes are assessed for overall wildfire risk based on the items asked about in questions 

3.1 – 3.11 above. Now that you have considered these items, how would you rate your 

current residence’s wildfire risk? (Circle one number)

26% 0 Low Risk 

49% 1 Moderate Risk

19% 2 High Risk

4% 3 Very High Risk 

2% 4 Extreme Risk 

CHANCES1 (n=651)

3.13 What do you think is the chance that a wildfire will start on or spread to your property 

this year? (Circle one number) 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

No For

Chance Sure

13% 38% 19% 11% 4% 12% 1% 1% 1% 0.5% 0%

CHANCES2 (n=655)

3.14 If a wildfire starts on or spreads to your property this year, what do you think is the 

chance that your home will be destroyed or severely damaged? (Circle one number)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

No For

Chance Sure

11% 28% 15% 9% 5% 11% 3% 3% 6% 3% 4%

TALKFIRE (n=669)

4.1 Have you ever talked about wildfire issues with a neighbor? (Circle one number) 

50% 0 No 

50% 1 Yes 

NACTION (n=667)

4.2 Have any of your neighbors done anything to reduce the risk of wildfire on their 

property? (Circle one number)

27% 0 No Skip to Question 4.5

47% 1 Yes

26% 2 Don’t know Skip to Question 4.5 

Section 4: Please think about the properties across the street, next to, or bordering your property 

(may include vacant lots or publicly owned land). Even if you live on a large property and 

your neighbors are far away, the following questions refer to the owners/managers of these 

adjacent properties as your neighbors. The properties themselves are referred to as neighboring 

properties. 
28

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

WHENACT (n=308)

4.3 When did your neighbors undertake action(s) to reduce risk of wildfire on their property 

in relation to any actions you have undertaken? (Circle one number)

10% 0 You have not taken any action

14% 1 They took action before you did

19% 2 They took action after you did

32% 4 You took action around the same time

26% 5 Don’t know 

WORKN (n=310)

4.4 Have you ever worked with any of your neighbors to reduce the risk of wildfire on your 

property or that of your neighbors? (Circle one number)

63% 0 No

11% 1 Yes, on your property

5% 2 Yes, on your neighbors’ properties

21% 3 Yes, on both your property and your neighbors’ properties

SLACKER (n=661)

4.5 Do you have any neighbors who are not taking action to address what you would 

consider sources of wildfire risk in the event of a wildfire (e.g., dense vegetation) on their 

property? (Circle one number)

32% 0 No

33% 1 Yes 

35% 2 Don’t know

4.6 How would you describe the vegetation on your property and the neighboring 

properties? (Circle one number for each)

Very

Sparse

Very 

Dense

When you first moved in, the vegetation on 

your property was... VEG1 (n=656) 11% 18% 35% 22% 14%

Currently, the vegetation on your property 

is... VEG2 (n=656) 14% 35% 36% 11% 3%

When you first moved in, the vegetation 

on most of the neighboring properties was.

VEG3 (n=651)

7% 20% 38% 23% 12%

Currently, the vegetation on most of the 

neighboring properties is... VEG4 (n=656) 7% 25% 39% 22% 6%
29

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

5.1 From which of the following sources have you received information about reducing the 

risk of wildfire? (Circle all that apply)

(n=665) 1 = circled; 0 = not circled; % reported is % circled

37% 1 Local fire department SOURCE1

26% 2 West Region Wildfire Council SOURCEw

8% 3 Neighborhood group (homeowners group, neighborhood watch, etc.) SOURCE2

20% 4 Neighbors, friends, or family members SOURCE3

34% 5 Media (newspaper, TV, radio, internet) SOURCE4

15% 6 Colorado State Forest Service SOURCE6

13% 7 US Forest Service or US Bureau of Land Management SOURCE7

6% 8 A wildfire related website SOURCEWEB

9% 9 Your homeowners insurance company INSURE2 

8% 10 Other Please describe: SOURCE9 

21% 11 None of the above. You have not received any information about wildfire 

SOURCE10

5.2 If there is a wildfire on your property, how likely do you think it is that the following would 

occur? (Circle one number for each item) 

Not

LikelyVery 

Likely

Not Applicable

You would put the fire out. LACT1 (n=636) 27% 21% 20% 13% 17% 1% 

The fire department would save your home. 

LACT2 (n=638) 14% 10% 19% 20% 36% 1% 

There would be some smoke damage to your 

home. LACT3 (n=632) 9% 13% 26% 20% 30% 1% 

There would be some physical damage to 

your home. LACT4 (n=637) 15% 16% 28% 18% 22% 1% 

Your home would be destroyed. LACT5 

(n=634) 32% 24% 17% 11% 14% 1% 

You would suffer financial losses due to the 

loss of business/income on your property. 

LACT6 (n=632)

41% 13% 9% 7% 16% 14% 

Your trees and landscape would burn. 

LACT7 (n=646) 7% 13% 21% 18% 38% 2% 

Your pets would be harmed (include non-income generating livestock). LACT8 (n=629) 44% 19% 10% 7% 5% 15% 

Your neighbors’ homes would be damaged or 

destroyed. LACT9 (n=635) 17% 18% 23% 22% 18% 2% 

Your community water supply would be 

threatened. LACT10 (n=634) 45% 18% 10% 9% 10% 8% 

The fire would spread to nearby public lands. 

LACT11 (n=638) 25% 12% 16% 14% 28% 5% 

Section 5: In this section, we ask about sources of wildfire information and wildfire beliefs.
30

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

5.3 How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about wildfire?

(Circle one number for each statement)

Strongly 

Agree Agree Neutral

DisagreeStrongly 

Disagree

Naturally occurring wildfire is not the 

problem; people who choose to live 

in fire prone areas are the problem. 

STATE1 (n=640)

12% 31% 35% 15% 7% 

With proper technology, we can control 

most wildfires after they have started. 

STATE2 (n=646)

3% 26% 30% 35% 6% 

Wildfires that threaten human life 

should be put out. STATE3 (n=649) 54% 37% 7% 1% 1% 

Wildfires that threaten property should 

be put out. STATE4 (n=643) 35% 42% 19% 3% 1% 

During a wildfire, saving homes should 

be a priority over saving forests. 

STATE5 (n=649)

31% 39% 21% 7% 2% 

Wildfires are a natural part of the balance of a healthy forest/ecosystem. 

STATE6 (n=646)

39% 41% 15% 2% 2% 

You live here for the trees and will not 

remove any of them to reduce wildfire 

risk. STATE11 (n=648)

2% 4% 19% 45% 30% 

Managing the wildfire danger is a 

government responsibility, not yours. 

STATE13 (n=647)

2% 1% 13% 49% 36% 

Actions taken by homeowners to reduce the risk of loss due to wildfire are 

not effective. STATE14 (n=648)

2% 3% 13% 51% 31% 

Your property is at risk of wildfire. 

STATE15 (n=649) 10% 39% 26% 17% 8% 

You don’t take action because adjacent 

properties are not treated leaving your 

actions ineffective. STATE17 (n=640)

1% 3% 25% 45% 25% 
31

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

6.1 Please tell us if each item listed below is a factor that keeps you from undertaking actions 

to reduce the wildfire risk on your property. (Circle one number for each item)

Keeps you from

taking action?

No Yes

Financial expense/ cost FACTOR1 (n=621) 67% 33%

Time it takes to do the work FACTOR2 (n=615) 71% 29%

Physical difficulty of doing the work FACTOR3 (n=617) 60% 40%

Lack of specific information on how to reduce wildfire risk on your 

property FACTOR4 (n=615) 74% 27%

Lack of effectiveness of risk reduction actions FACTOR5 (n=597) 87% 13%

Do not want to change the way your property looks

FACTOR6 (n=607) 81% 19%

Lack of information about or options for removal of slash or 

other materials from thinning trees and other vegetation.

FACTOR7 (n=618)

74% 26%

Lack of awareness of wildfire risk FACTOR8 (n=613) 89% 11%

Restrictions by homeowners’ association on cutting trees

FACTOR9 (n=609) 93% 7%

6.2 Would any of the following items encourage you to reduce the wildfire risk on your property? (Circle all that apply)

(n=641) 1 = circled; 0 = not circled; % reported is % circled

45% 1 Financial assistance INCENTV1

57% 2 Specific information about what needs to be done INCENTV2

52% 3 Help doing the work (thinning trees and vegetation...) INCENTV3

22% 4 A list of recommended contractors that could be hired to do the work INCENTV4

13% 5 Other (what? INCENTV5 )

Section 6: In this section, we would like to know about your willingness to reduce the risk of 

wildfire on your property.
32

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

PARTICIPATE (n=578)

6.3 While costs vary, the average cost to a homeowner of having a contractor remove vegetation to reduce wildfire risk is approximately $1000 per acre. If your property is less than 

one acre, the average cost to reduce risk on the entire property is approximately $1000. 

If a grant program paid for a share of the cost of this work on your property, would you 

participate in the program? (Circle one number)

36% 0 No

64% 1 Yes  Please circle the highest amount that you would be willing to

 pay per acre to have a contractor remove vegetation. AMTUPAY (n=356)

Amount you 

pay

/ Amount grant pays per 

acre

6% $1000 / $0

3% $800 / $200

17% $600 / $400

26% $400 / $600

33% $200 / $800

14% $0 / $1000

7.1 Do you view yourself as someone who is fully prepared to take risks, or do you try to 

avoid taking risks? (Circle one number)

RISKTAKE1 (n=619) 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Not at all Very 

willing to willing to

take risks take risks

7% 9% 10% 14% 11% 28% 6% 6% 5% 3% 2%

7.2 On the same scale, how would you assess your risk tolerance in the following areas? 

(Circle one number for each item) 

Not at all 

willing to 

take risks

Very 

willing 

to take 

risks

Driving a 

car 

21% 16% 15% 11% 7% 13% 6% 4% 3% 1% 4% RISKTAKE2 

(n=622)

Financial 

matters

14% 13% 18% 15% 9% 15% 8% 4% 2% 1% 2% RISKTAKE3 

(n=618)

Sports or 

leisure

12% 11% 12% 13% 9% 16% 8% 9% 6% 2% 2% RISKTAKE4 

(n=609)

Career 

decisions

14% 9% 11% 9% 9% 18% 8% 7% 6% 3% 4% RISKTAKE5 

(n=590)

Health 

choices

18% 13% 18% 14% 8% 15% 5% 3% 1% 1% 2% RISKTAKE6 

(n=617)

Section 7: In this section, we ask about personal and household characteristics. As with all 

questions in this survey, your responses are completely confidential. 
33

Research Note RMRS-RN-67. June 2015.

AGE (n=628)

7.3 What is your age? (Fill in the blank)

MEAN = 64; MEDIAN = 65

GENDER (n=640)

7.4 Are you? (Circle one number)

63% 0 Male

38% 1 Female

EDUC (n=636)

7.5 What is the highest grade or year of school you completed? (Circle one number)

1% 0 Less than high school

16% 1 High school graduate

24% 2 Some college or technical school

8% 3 Technical or trade school

22% 4 College graduate

8% 5 Some graduate work

22% 6 Advanced Degree (M.D., M.A., M.S., Ph.D., etc.)

EMPLOY (n=640)

7.6 Which of the following best describes your current employment situation? 

(Circle one number)

31% 0 Employed full time (including self-employed)

13% 1 Employed part time (including self-employed)

4% 2 Unemployed or do not work outside of the home

52% 3 Retired

INCOME1 (n=540)

7.7 Which of the following categories describes your annual household income? 

(Circle one number)

7% 0 Less than $15,000

12% 1 $15,000 – $24,999

13% 2 $25,000 – $34,999

15% 3 $35,000 – $49,999

20% 4 $50,000 – $74,999

17% 5 $75,000 – $99,999

11% 6 $100,000 – $149,999

3% 7 $150,000 – $199,999

3% 8 More than $200,000

Thank you for your help! Please use the space below to write any additional 

comments.
United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination 

against its customers, employees, and applicants for emploment on 

the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender 

identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital 

status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of 

an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program, 

or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or 

activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited 

bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_rn067.html