1

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Research Note

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW

December 2011

Living with Wildfire in Boulder County, Colorado,

2007

Patricia A. Champ, Hannah Brenkert-Smith, and Nicholas Flores

Citation:

Champ, Patricia A.; Brenkert-Smith, Hannah; Flores, Nicholas. 

2011. 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.

Authors:

Patricia A. Champ, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Hannah Brenkert-Smith, Institute of Behavioral Science, 

University of Colorado, Boulder.

Nicholas Flores, Department of Economics, University of 

Colorado, Boulder.

Abstract: The devastating impact of wildfire on residents living in fire 

prone areas has become an all too common media story in recent 

years. While significant efforts have been made to inform residents in 

fire prone areas of the risk, it is not clear to what extent property owners are taking action to reduce risk. Likewise, we know little about 

what factors are related to taking action to reduce risk. In an effort to 

explore these issues further and to better characterize the wildland urban interface (WUI) residents of Boulder County, Colorado, a general 

population survey of WUI residents was implemented. The survey was 

designed to provide information regarding knowledge, concern, and 

activities related to wildfire and wildfire risk mitigation. Survey results 

suggest that word had gotten out about wildfire risk as most survey respondents knew about the risk when they decided to purchase a home 

in a fire prone area. Likewise, survey respondents expressed concern 

that a wildfire would damage their home or property. Completing more 

wildfire risk mitigation actions was found to be related to first-hand 

experience with wildfire and perceptions of wildfire risk.

Introduction

Wildfire and its associated impacts on residents living in fire 

prone areas is a common story in the media during the wildfire 

season. Wildfire risk in areas such as the Rocky Mountain West 

is exacerbated by the influx of individuals choosing to live in 

the area that is most susceptible to wildfires, the wildland-urban interface (WUI). While significant efforts have been made 

to inform new and existing residents in WUI areas of the risk, 

it is not clear how the message has resonated with the target 

population. In Colorado, Boulder County has promoted concerted efforts to educate WUI residents about wildfire risk and 

the actions they need to take to reduce the risk of losing their 

home to a fire. A previous qualitative study of five Larimer 

County WUI communities suggested that all wildfire information sources were not the same and that study participants 

preferred the one-on-one information sharing with a wildfire 

specialist (Brenkert-Smith and others 2005, 2006). The study 

also suggested that homeowners’ decisions to mitigate wildfire risk were complex. Considerations included homeowners’ 

understanding of the biophysical characteristics of the landscape around their homes, the level of wildfire risk reduction 

activities on neighboring properties, and perceptions of the effectiveness of wildfire risk mitigation activities.

In an effort to explore these issues further and to better 

characterize the WUI residents of Boulder County, a general population survey of WUI residents was implemented. 

Baseline information about homeowners in the Boulder 

County WUI and their perspectives on wildfire risk and efforts 

to mitigate that risk will facilitate long-term monitoring and 

management practices (see Appendix A for a copy of the survey 

and responses to all survey questions). The survey was designed 

to provide information regarding knowledge, concern, and 
2

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

activities related to wildfire and wildfire risk mitigation among 

homeowners living in the Boulder County WUI. This report 

summarizes the study design, the characteristics of the survey 

respondents, and the wildfire mitigation actions they have 

taken. In an effort to better understand why some homeowners do not make more of an effort to mitigate wildfire risk, we 

describe relationships between taking wildfire risk-reducing actions and survey measures such as demographic characteristics 

of the respondents, their experience with wildfire, and sources 

of information about wildfire.

Methods

The Survey

A survey instrument was developed to provide information 

on WUI homeowners and their efforts to reduce the risk of 

loss related to wildfires. The survey was sponsored by Boulder 

County and the University of Colorado. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix A. The survey contained seven 

sections designed to collect information on where respondents 

live, their experience with wildfire, actions taken by the respondents to reduce wildfire risk, attitudes about wildfire, social 

interactions (two sections), and demographic characteristics.

Target Population and Sampling

Geo-coded data from the Boulder County Assessor’s Office, 

GIS software, and Boulder County fire hazard maps were used 

to develop a target population of approximately 8300 privately owned residential parcels that have some kind of building 

structure located on the property. From this sampling frame, a 

random sample of 1750 households was chosen.

Data Collection

The survey was administered to the sample of Boulder 

county residents in the summer of 2007. All potential participants were mailed a first class envelope with a letter of 

invitation to participate in the survey. Participants were given 

a choice of completing a web-based version of the survey or 

a paper survey. To participate on-line, respondents went to a 

web address provided in the letter of invitation. Those wanting 

to complete a paper survey returned a postage paid postcard 

that was included with the letter of invitation. They were sent 

a survey, a letter with instructions and thanks, and a postage 

paid envelope for returning the survey. A second mailing was 

sent to non-respondents approximately one week after the first 

mailing. A third and final mailing was sent to non-respondents 

approximately one week after the second mailing.

Participants who logged onto the website were able to 

complete the survey at their leisure. It took between 15 and 

20 minutes for most participants to complete the survey. The 

survey log was checked regularly, and the addresses of those 

who had completed the survey were removed from the mailing 

list for the second and/or third mailings.

Descriptive Results

Of the 1750 initial letters that were mailed, 602 were not 

deliverable. Online surveys were completed by 316 households, 

and mail surveys were completed by 105 households. The overall response rate was 36% ([316 + 105] /1148). The responses 

to almost all of the survey questions were statistically similar 

between the online and mail surveys. Just four questions had 

response distributions that were statistically different between 

mail and online survey respondents: (a) number of people 

under the age of 18 living in the current residence, (b) race, 

(c)  employment status, and (d) age. The results summarized 

in the rest of this report are based on analyzing the online and 

mail survey data together.

Characteristics of the Survey Respondents

Very few of the survey respondents were less than 30 years 

old (1.3%). The average age of the respondents was 55 years 

old. Slightly more males responded (59%) than females (46%) 

and almost all of the survey respondents identified “white” as 

their racial group (96%). Seventy-two percent of the respondents were married. The respondents were well-educated with 

41% having advanced degrees. Compared to 2007 U.S. Census 

data for Boulder County, the survey respondents were more 

educated than Boulder County, as a whole (83% of the study 

population were at least college graduates compared to 52% 

for Boulder County). Respondents’ median income (around 

$64,000) was higher than the median household income for 

Boulder County, as a whole.

Place of Residence

While some WUI areas in the United States have many 

seasonal residents, that does not appear to be the case for 

the Boulder County WUI. Most survey respondents were 

full-time residents (96%). As might be expected, most of the 

part-time residents occupied their home in the Boulder WUI 

during the summer (87%). Few of the respondents (22%) expected to move within the next five years. There were very few 

renters among the survey respondents as 97% of the survey 

respondents owned their home and almost all of the survey 

respondents said they have homeowner’s or renter’s insurance 
3

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

(98%). Most households included pets (69%), but only 1% 

included income generating livestock. Land parcel sizes ranged 

from less than a quarter acre to 42 acres. Over half of the survey 

respondents (56%) said they live on land parcels that were less 

than 2 acres.

Neighbors

In the survey section that asked about social interactions, 

respondents were also asked about the density of vegetation on 

their property and neighboring properties when they moved in 

and currently. Approximately 48% of the respondents said the 

vegetation on their property was dense when they moved in, 

compared to 17% who said the current vegetation was dense. 

Interestingly, 48% of the respondents said the neighboring 

properties were dense when they moved in and 36% said those 

properties currently had dense vegetation. In other words, survey respondents report reducing the vegetation density on their 

property, but they reported a smaller reduction in vegetation 

density on neighboring properties.

Experience with Wildfire

Very few survey respondents had first-hand experience 

with a wildfire on their property (6%). About a quarter of the 

survey respondents had evacuated their current residence due 

to a wildfire (22%) and only a fifth had prepared to evacuate (20%). Most respondents (68%) knew someone who was 

evacuated due to wildfire and over a third of respondents knew 

someone whose residence was lost or damaged due to a wildfire 

(37%). However, 67% had experienced a wildfire fewer than 

10 miles away from their property. Most of the survey respondents (86%) said they were somewhat or very aware of wildfire 

risk when they bought their current residence.

Attitudes Toward Wildfire

We examine attitudes toward wildfire by considering respondents’ levels of concern about what might be damaged by 

a wildfire (Table 1). Concern was measured on a 5-point scale 

with 1 = not at all concerned and 5 = extremely concerned. The 

highest level of concern was expressed about wildfire damaging 

respondents’ homes (average rating = 3.38). Survey respondents also expressed a somewhat higher level of concern that 

a wildfire would damage their property or landscape (average 

rating = 3.28) and damage public lands (average rating = 3.22). 

Respondents were least concerned about their ability to earn 

income being affected by a wildfire.

Attitudes were also measured with 17 statements about 

wildfire. Respondents were asked to rate how strongly they 

agree or disagree with each statement (1 = strongly agree, 

2 = agree, 3 = neutral, 4 = disagree, 5 = strongly disagree) 

(Table 2). Responses tended to cluster around the middle of the 

scale (agree, neutral, or disagree) for the statement “Naturally 

occurring wildfire is not the problem, people who choose to 

live in fire prone areas are the problem.” Survey respondents 

seemed to understand that they are likely to experience a wildfire as 69% of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed 

with the statement that “A wildfire is unlikely to happen within the time period you expect to live here.” Likewise, survey 

respondents seemed to understand that their property is at 

risk of wildfire as 87% disagreed or strongly disagreed with 

the statement “Your property is not at risk of wildfire.” They 

also seemed to think that managing wildfire danger is their responsibility as 82% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the 

statement “Managing the wildfire danger is a government responsibility, not yours.”

Perceptions of Wildfire Risk

We asked respondents how much they think vegetation on 

their property and the physical characteristics of their house 

contribute to the chances of a wildfire damaging their property in the next five years (1 = does not contribute; 5 = major 

contributor). Thirty-three percent of respondents said they 

thought vegetation on their property was a contributor or a 

major contributor to the chances of a wildfire damaging their 

Table 1. Distribution of response to the question “How concerned are you about wildfire damaging or affecting the items listed below?”

1 = Not at 5 = Extremely

all concerned concerned Average Rating

Your house or other buildings on your property 4% 14% 42% 21% 19% 3.38

(n = 406)

Your property/landscape (n = 404) 6% 18% 36% 22% 18% 3.28

Public lands near your home (n = 404) 12% 16% 33% 19% 21% 3.22

Your health or your family’s health (n = 406) 20% 27% 28% 11% 14% 2.71

Local water sources (n = 405) 22% 22% 32% 11% 10% 2.61

Your pets and/or livestock (n = 400) 39% 17% 19% 11% 14% 2.45

Your ability to earn income (n = 404) 57% 22% 11% 5% 4% 1.77
4

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

property. Likewise, a similar percent of respondents (33%) said 

they thought the physical characteristics of their house contributed to chances of a wildfire damaging their property.

Wildfire Risk Information Sources

Respondents were asked about two dimensions of wildfire 

risk information. They were asked about sources of information and confidence in the accuracy of the information source. 

Interestingly, the local fire department (67%) was the most 

frequently reported source of information about wildfire risk, 

and it was the information source with the highest rating with 

respect to confidence in the accuracy of the information. The 

second most commonly reported information source was the 

media (46%). However, survey respondents did not express 

much confidence in the accuracy of information about wildfire 

risk provided by the media. Neighborhood groups were reported as an information source by 33% of the survey respondents 

and were generally considered to provide accurate information. However, while “Neighbors, friends, or family members” 

was one of the more frequently reported information sources 

(43%), respondents expressed relatively a low level of confidence in the accuracy of information provided by those groups. 

Thirty percent of respondents said they received information 

about reducing the risk of wildfire from the Colorado State 

Forest Service and the Boulder County wildfire specialist and 

20% of the respondents reported receiving wildfire information from the U.S. Forest Service. All three of these information 

sources had high ratings in terms of confidence in the accuracy 

of information provided. In general the credibility of information sources was quite variable. Information sources that reach 

more homeowners such as newspapers, TV, and radio may not 

be particularly effective if homeowners do not have confidence 

in the accuracy of the information.

Table 2. Distribution of response to wildfire statements.

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Naturally occurring wildfire is not the problem; people 7% 24% 31% 24% 14%

who choose to live in fire prone areas are the problem. 

(n = 392)

With proper technology, we can control most wildfires after 2% 22% 29% 38% 8%

they have started. (n = 393)

Wildfires that threaten human life should be put out. (n = 391) 51% 40% 5% 3% 1%

Wildfires that threaten property should be put out. (n = 395) 34% 46% 15% 4% 1%

During a wildfire, saving homes should be a priority over 32% 41% 19% 7% 2%

saving forests. (n = 391)

Wildfires are a natural part of the balance of a healthy 47% 42% 10% <1% <1%

forest/ecosystem. (n = 396)

You do not need to take action to reduce the risk of loss due 2% 4% 7% 39% 48%

to wildfire because the risk is not that great. (n = 395)

You do not have the time to implement wildfire risk reduction 1% 7% 15% 46% 30%

actions. (n = 392)

You do not have the money for wildfire risk reduction actions. 3% 11% 21% 43% 22%

(n = 393)

You do not need to act to reduce the risk of loss due to 1% 2% 8% 44% 45%

wildfire because you have insurance. (n = 391)

You live here for the trees and will not remove any of them to 2% 5% 10% 47% 37%

reduce fire risk. (n = 394)

A wildfire is unlikely to happen within the time period you 1% 10% 20% 38% 31%

expect to live here. (n = 393)

Managing the wildfire danger is a government responsibility, 1% 2% 14% 49% 33%

not yours. (n = 393)

Actions to reduce the risk of loss due to wildfire are not 2% 5% 12% 48% 33%

effective. (n = 393)

Your property is not at risk of wildfire. (n = 392) <1% 5% 7% 46% 41%

You don’t take action to reduce the risk of loss due to wildfire <1% 2% 9% 46% 42%

because if a wildfire reaches your property firefighters will 

protect your home. (n = 393)

You don’t take action because adjacent properties are not 2% 5% 15% 42% 35%

treated leaving your actions ineffective. (n = 391)
5

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

Taking Action

There are many actions a homeowner can take to mitigate 

the risk of wildfire, from thinning vegetation to installing a 

fire resistant roof. Based on Firewise recommendations and 

consultation with the Boulder County wildfire specialist, a 

list of 12 wildfire risk-reducing actions was included in the 

survey. Respondents were asked to circle the actions they had 

undertaken on their property. Only 3% of the survey respondents had not taken any of the actions. Therefore, it appears 

that wildfire risk mitigation is a matter of degree, not an all 

or nothing proposition. The action taken by the highest number of respondents (73%) was “Removed dead or overhanging 

branches in area within a 30 foot perimeter around your house 

or other buildings.” Sixty-five percent of the survey respondents 

had mowed long grasses around their home to reduce wildfire 

risk, and 64% had cleared leaves and pine needles from their 

roof and/or yard to reduce wildfire risk. Installing fire resistant 

siding on house or other buildings and installing screening over 

roof vents were the two measures implemented least frequently 

(both 22%).

Determinants of 

Mitigation Actions

To better understand who adopts different mitigation strategies, we first examined the relationship between demographic 

characteristics of respondents and mitigation. With respect 

to age, we found that age and number of mitigation actions 

taken were positively correlated (Pearson’s Correlation = 0.207, 

p = 0.000). We categorized respondents into categories based 

on the number of mitigation actions they reported implementing: low mitigators (implemented 0 to 4 measures), mid-level 

mitigators (5 to 9 measures), and high mitigators (10 or more 

measures). We then conducted contingency table analyses to 

look at the relationship between mitigation levels and demographic variables.

Stated Considerations and Mitigation

Respondents were asked how much of a consideration 

expense, time, physical difficulty, lack of information and 

likelihood of a fire on their property were in their decision to 

take action to reduce wildfire risk (1 = not a consideration to 

5 = strong consideration). The perceived likelihood of a wildfire being on the property received the highest average response 

(mean rating = 3.53). Cost (mean rating = 2.90), time (mean = 

2.84) and physical difficulty (mean = 2.77) had similar average 

ratings. Lack of information received the lowest mean score 

(mean = 2.09). However, low mitigators were more likely than 

mid-level or high mitigators to cite lack of information as a 

strong consideration when deciding to take action to reduce 

wildfire risk (Pearson’s chi-square = 12.846; p = 0.002). High 

mitigators were more likely than medium or low mitigators 

to cite the likelihood of a wildfire being on their property as 

a consideration when deciding to take action (Pearson’s chisquare = 5.332; p = 0.070).

Demographic Characteristics and Mitigation

With respect to age, we found that age quartiles and level 

of mitigation were related (Pearson’s chi-square = 22.908; p = 

0.001) with more low mitigators in the youngest age quartile. 

Likewise, despite the fact that women have been found to be 

more risk averse than men (Halek and Eisenhauer 2001), gender was not found to be significantly related to the level of 

mitigation (Pearson’s chi-square = 3.398; p = 0.183). Fifteen 

percent of respondents reported that financial expense was a 

strong consideration when deciding whether or not to take action to reduce risk, and we cannot reject the hypothesis that 

there is a relationship between income and level of mitigation 

(Pearson’s chi-square = 24.344; p = 0.042) with more low mitigators in the two lowest income categories.

Place of Residence and Mitigation

We found evidence of a statistically significant relationship 

between lot size and mitigation levels (Pearson’s chi-square = 

27.367; p = 0.000) with more low and medium mitigators on 

lots that are less than two acres. We also found a statistically 

significant relationship (Pearson’s chi-square = 7.099; p = .029) 

between level of mitigation and plans to move in the next five 

years with fewer high mitigators planning to move.

Experience with Wildfire and Mitigation

Consistent with some of the research on other natural hazards, past experience with wildfire appeared to play a role in 

how many wildfire risk reduction actions homeowner completed. Respondents who had been evacuated or who had prepared 

to evacuate reported higher levels of mitigation (Pearson’s chisquare = 25.468; p = 0.000). Likewise, second hand experience 

in the form of knowing someone who had been evacuated was 

related to higher levels of mitigation (Pearson’s chi-square = 

9.987; p = 0.007). While only thirteen percent of the survey respondents were not aware of wildfire risk when they purchased 

their current residence, those who were aware had higher levels 

of mitigation (Pearson’s chi-square = 12.572; p = 0.050).
6

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

Attitudes and Mitigation

Of the seven items listed in Table 1 that could be affected in a 

wildfire, four items were found to have a statistically significant 

relationship with mitigation level. High mitigators expressed 

more concern about wildfire affecting their home (Pearson’s 

chi-square = 10.841; p = 0.004), their health (Pearson’s chisquare = 9.190; p = 0.010), their pets (Pearson’s chi-square = 

7.274; p = 0.026), and their property (Pearson’s chi-square = 

13.223; p = 0.001). With respect to other attitude measures, 

respondents who took more mitigation measures seemed to 

clearly understand that homeowners have a role in reducing 

wildfire risk. When asked to rate their strength of agreement 

on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly agree; 5 = strongly disagree) 

with a variety of statements about wildfire risk, we saw some 

interesting results. Compared to low mitigators, mid-level and 

high mitigators were more likely to strongly disagree with the 

following statements:

•	 You do not need to take action to reduce the risk of loss due 

to wildfire because the risk is not that great.

•	 You do not have the time to implement wildfire risk 

reduction actions.

•	 You do not have the money for wildfire risk reduction 

actions.

•	 You do not need to act to reduce the risk of loss due to 

wildfire because you have insurance.

•	 You live in here for the trees and will not remove any of 

them to reduce wildfire risk.

•	 A wildfire is unlikely to happen within the time period you 

expect to live here.

•	 Managing the wildfire danger is a government responsibility, 

not yours.

•	 Actions to reduce the risk of loss due to wildfire are not 

effective.

•	 Your property is not at risk of wildfire.

•	 You don’t take action to reduce the risk of loss due to wildfire 

because if a wildfire reaches your property firefighters will 

protect your home.

•	 You don’t take action because adjacent properties are not 

treated leaving your actions ineffective.

It appears that individuals who undertake higher levels of wildfire risk reduction understand that they are at risk of losing 

their home to a wildfire and that the fire department may not 

be able to save their home.

Perceptions of Wildfire Risk and Mitigation

We examined the relationship between perceived contributors to wildfire risk and wildfire risk mitigation actions taken. 

The perception that vegetation on homeowner’s own property 

contributed a lot to the chances of a wildfire damaging their 

property was not related to mitigation level (Pearson chi-square 

= 1.383; p = 0.501). However, respondents who thought the 

vegetation on nearby public land (Pearson chi-square = 4.812; 

p = 0.090), human activity (Pearson chi-square = 8.316; 

p = 0.016), and weather related starts (Pearson chi-square = 

15.396; p = 0.000) were a major contributors to the chances of 

wildfire damaging their property, were more likely to be midlevel or high mitigators.

Wildfire Risk Information 

Sources and Mitigation

Compared to the low mitigators, the mid-level and high 

mitigators were more likely to have received wildfire information from the local fire department, a neighborhood group, 

neighbor, friends or family members, media, the Boulder 

County Wildfire Specialist, the Colorado State Forest Service, 

or the U.S. Forest Service. In other words, homeowners who 

received information from almost every source asked undertook a high level of wildfire mitigation.

Expectations Related to a 

Wildfire Event

The survey posed several questions about expectations and 

understandings of wildfire. Though the responses to those 

questions may not appear to be related to taking more mitigation action to reduce risk, they do shed some light on how 

survey respondents understand wildfire. For example, survey 

respondents were asked how likely they thought it would be 

that their home would be destroyed and that their trees and 

landscape would burn if a wildfire were to occur on their property. Only 33% of the respondents said they thought it was 

likely that their home would be destroyed, while 72% said they 

thought their trees and landscape would be destroyed. It appears that this disparity comes from the perception by 48% of 

the respondents said that if a wildfire were to occur on their 

property, the fire department would save their home. These expectations may be linked to attitudes reported earlier regarding 

wildfire management.
7

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

Conclusions

The results described in this report paint an interesting picture of Boulder County. The survey respondents represent a 

stable population in the sense that most were full-time residents who did not plan to move in the next five years. They 

were more educated than Boulder County, as a whole (83% 

of the study population were at least college graduates compared to 52% of Boulder County). Likewise, median income 

appeared to be a bit higher than Boulder County as a whole.

It seems that word had gotten out about wildfire risk because 

most survey respondents (87%) knew about the risk when they 

decided to purchase their home in a fire prone area. Likewise, 

survey respondents were concerned that a wildfire would damage their home or property. Most realized that a wildfire is likely 

to occur while they live at their current residence; and most 

disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “Managing 

the wildfire danger is a government responsibility, not yours.” 

Very few of the respondents had first-hand experience with 

wildfire on their property.

However, concern and awareness about wildfire risk do not 

necessarily translate directly into taking action. While very few 

respondents had done nothing to mitigate the risk of wildfire 

on their property, there appears to be room for taking more action. The action taken by the most respondents was “Removed 

dead or overhanging branches in area within a 30 foot perimeter around your house or other buildings.” Likewise, most 

of the survey respondents had installed a house number in a 

clearly visible place. Installing fire resistant siding on the house 

or other buildings and installing screening over roof vents were 

the actions taken least often.

One of the goals of this study was to provide a better understanding of factors related to higher mitigation levels. We 

found that past experience with wildfire, in the sense of having 

been evacuated or prepared to evacuate, is related to higher 

mitigation levels. Likewise, the individuals who knew about 

wildfire risk when they purchased their home also had higher 

mitigation levels. We also found that homeowners who undertake higher levels of mitigation perceived a higher level of risk. 

High mitigation was also associated with getting information 

from multiple sources about wildfire.

References

Brenkert, H.; Champ, P.; Flores, N. 2005. Mitigation of wildfire risk by homeowners. Res. Note RMRS-RN-25WWW. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 9 p.

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.

Halek, M. and J.G. Eisenhauer. 2001. Demography of Risk 

Aversion. Journal of Risk and Insurance 68(1): 1-24.
8

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

2007 Survey – Boulder County 

Patty Champ (USFS), Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Nick Flores (CU Boulder)

Living with Wildfire in Colorado

University of Colorado at Boulder

(n=421)

VERSION 25% mail; 75% web

Key: Red all caps are variable names

n= number of observations

Blue numbers are percent responses
9

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

2007 Survey – Boulder County 

Patty Champ (USFS), Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Nick Flores (CU Boulder)

Section 1: In the first section, we ask questions about where you live. If you own multiple 

homes, please answer the following questions with respect to the location where the survey was 

mailed. We refer to this home as your current residence. 

OWNRENT (n= 407)

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

97% 1 Own

3% 2 Rent  In what year did you move into your current residence? RENTMOVE (n=10)

Mean=2001

TYPE1 (n=407)

2. Which of the following best describes your current residence? (Circle one number)

99.5% 1 Single family home

.5% 2 Condominium or townhouse

0% 3 Mobile home or trailer

0% 4 Apartment building

LIVERES (n=408)

3. Do you live in your current residence full time or part time? (Circle one number)

96% 1 Full time  In what year did you assume full time residence? FULLTIME (n=393) 

Mean=1991

4% 2 Part time  What season(s) do you reside at your current residence? (Circle all that apply)

(n=15)

47% 1 Spring SPRING

87% 2 Summer SUMMER

80% 3 Fall FALL

33% 4 Winter WINTER

YRBUILD

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

Mean=1971 Year current residence was built

INSURE (n=408)

5. Do you have homeowner’s or renter’s insurance? (Circle one number)

3% 1 No

98% 2 Yes

6. Including yourself, how many people live in your current residence? (Fill in the blank)

OVER18 mean=2 Number of people over the age of 18 living in your current residence

UNDER18 mean=.6 Number of people under the age of 18 living in your current residence
10

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

2007 Survey – Boulder County 

Patty Champ (USFS), Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Nick Flores (CU Boulder)

PETS (n=405)

7. Do you have pets or non- income generating livestock at your residence? (Circle one number)

31% 1 No

69% 2 Yes

LIVEST (n=408)

8. Do you have income generating livestock on this property? (Circle one number)

99% 1 No

1% 2 Yes

LOTSIZE (n=407)

9. What size is your parcel?

8% 1 Around 1⁄4 acre or less (1/4 acre = 10,890 square feet)

48% 2 1⁄4 acre to 2 acres

43% 3 Larger than 2 acres  How many acres is your lot? LOTSIZE mean=10

NEAREST (n=406)

10. What is the distance from your house to the nearest house or building that lies outside your property 

line? (Circle one number)

6.9% 1 Less than 25 feet

22.4% 2 25 – 100 feet

70.7% 3 More than 100 feet

MOVE1 (n=406)

11. Do you expect to sell your property or move away in the next five years? (Circle one number)

78% 1 No

22% 2 Yes  Why might you move?___________________________________
11

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

2007 Survey – Boulder County 

Patty Champ (USFS), Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Nick Flores (CU Boulder)

FIRE (n=405)

1. Since you have lived at your current residence, what is the closest a wildfire has come to your 

property? (Circle one number)

6% 1 There has been a wildfire on your property  How many?__ NOFIRE mean=2.3__

67% 2 Less than 10 miles

20% 3 More than 10 miles away

6% 4 Not sure

DAMAGE (n=404)

2. Has your current residence ever been damaged by a wildfire or smoke from wildfire? (Circle one 

number)

97% 1 No

4% 2 Yes

EVACUATE (n=405)

3. Have you ever been evacuated from your current residence due to a wildfire or threat of wildfire or 

received a reverse 911 call to prepare to evacuate? (Circle one number)

59% 1 No

22% 2 Yes, evacuated

20% 3 Yes, prepared to evacuate

PREVIOUS (n=419)

4. Have you ever faced a wildfire threat at a previous residence (in Colorado or elsewhere)? (Circle one 

number)

87% 1 No

13% 2 Yes

5. Do you personally know anyone who has been evacuated from her/his residence due to a wildfire? 

(Circle all that apply)

(n=419) 1=circled; 0=not circled; % reported is % circled

KNOW1 32% 1 No, you don’t know anyone who was ever evacuated 

KNOW2 45% 2 Yes, you know someone who was evacuated in the last 5 years

KNOW3 28% 3 Yes, you know someone who was evacuated more than 5 years ago.

Section 2: We would like to know about your experiences with wildfire. Even if you have not ever 

experienced a wildfire, please answer the following questions. Please do not include prescribed 

burns in your answers unless they were prescribed burns that escaped control.
12

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

2007 Survey – Boulder County 

Patty Champ (USFS), Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Nick Flores (CU Boulder)

6. Do you personally know anyone whose residence has been damaged or lost due to a wildfire? 

(Circle all that apply)

(n=419) 1=circled; 0=not circled; % reported is % circled

LOST1 63% 1 No, you don’t know anyone whose residence has been damaged or lost due to a 

wildfire

LOST2 14% 2 Yes, you know someone whose residence has been damaged or lost in the last 5 

years

LOST3 22% 3 Yes, you know someone whose residence has been damaged or lost more than 5 

years ago

RISKAWAR (n=407)

7. How aware of wildfire risk were you when you bought or decided to rent your current residence or 

property? (Circle one number)

13% 1 Not aware

41% 2 Somewhat aware

45% 3 Very aware

2% 4 Don’t remember

PROPRISK (n=403)

8. Are there characteristics or features on your property that you think make it particularly susceptible 

to wildfire? (Circle one number)

40% 1 No

58% 2 Yes  Please explain: _____________________________________ 

3% 3 Don’t know

9. How much do you think the vegetation and building materials on your property contributed to the 

wildfire risk when you moved into your current residence? (Circle one number for each item) 

Did not 

contribute to 

wildfire risk

Contributed a 

lot to wildfire 

risk

Don’t 

Know

Vegetation on property when purchased or decided 

to rent VEGMOVE (n=404) 9% 10% 33% 12% 32% 4%

Roofing, siding, or deck materials when purchased 

or decided to rent ROOFMOVE (n=403) 20% 12% 32% 11% 21% 4%

In the following questions, please think of vegetation as any kind of plant, such as grasses, 

shrubs, and trees. 
13

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

2007 Survey – Boulder County 

Patty Champ (USFS), Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Nick Flores (CU Boulder)

10. How much do you think each of the following factors contributes to the chances of a wildfire 

damaging your property in the next 5 years? (Circle one number for each item)

Does not 

contribute Major contributor Don’t Know

Vegetation on your property CONTRIB1 

(n=403) 9% 17% 41% 13% 20% <1%

Physical characteristics of your property 

other than vegetation (e.g., steep inclines) 

CONTRIB2 (n=402)

19% 17% 30% 16% 17% <1%

Physical characteristics of your house or 

other buildings (e.g., roofing or siding) 

CONTRIB3 (n=404)

16% 27% 33% 11% 11% <1%

Vegetation on your neighbors’ properties 

CONTRIB4 (n=405) 10% 12% 32% 19% 26% 2%

Vegetation on nearby National Forest or 

National Park CONTRIB5 (n=402) 23% 8% 20% 10% 31% 8%

Vegetation on other nearby public land (e.g., 

Open Space or greenbelt) CONTRIB6 

(n=392)

19% 10% 26% 12% 24% 10%

Human activity CONTRIB7 (n=402) 7% 10% 18% 16% 46% 4%

Weather-related natural starts (e.g., lightning) 

CONTRIB8 (n=403) 2% 5% 21% 24% 46% 2%

Availability of roads for you to exit 

community and emergency vehicles to enter 

community CONTRIB9 (n=401)

25% 24% 28% 9% 12% 2%

11. How concerned are you about wildfire damaging or affecting the items listed below? (Circle one 

number for each statement)

Not at all 

concerned

Extremely 

concerned

Your house or other buildings on 

your property CONCERN1 (n=406) 4% 14% 42% 21% 19%

Your health or your family’s health 

CONCERN2 (n=406) 20% 27% 28% 11% 14%

Your ability to earn income CONCERN3 

(n=404) 57% 22% 11% 5% 4%

Your pets and/or livestock CONCERN4 

(n=400) 39% 17% 19% 11% 14%

Your property/landscape CONCERN5 (n=404) 6% 18% 36% 22% 18%

Local water sources CONCERN6 (n=405) 22% 22% 32% 11% 10%

Public lands near your home CONCERN7 

(n=404) 12% 16% 33% 19% 21%

Other (please specify):

CONCERN8 (N=42) 29% 2% 14% 17% 38%
14

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

2007 Survey – Boulder County 

Patty Champ (USFS), Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Nick Flores (CU Boulder)

(n=421) 1=circled; 0=not circled; % reported is % circled

1. Since moving in, have you done any of the following on your property? (Circle all that apply)

1 Pruned limbs so lowest is 6-10 feet from the ground in within a 30 foot perimeter from your

house or other buildings LIMB30 59%

2 Pruned limbs so lowest is 6-10 feet from the ground in the area 30-100 feet from your house or 

other buildings LIMBGT30 42%

3 Removed dead or overhanging branches in area within a 30 foot perimeter around your house or 

other buildings BR30 73%

4 Removed dead or overhanging branches in the area 30-100 feet from your house or other 

buildings BRGT30 49%

5 Thinned trees and shrubs within a 30 foot perimeter around house or other buildings THIN30 

63%

6 Thinned trees and shrubs in area 30-100 feet from your house or other buildings THINGT30 

48%

7 Installed a fire resistant roof ROOF 51%

8 Installed fire resistant siding on house or other buildings SIDE 22%

9 Installed screening over roof vents SCREEN 22%

10 Installed house number in clearly visible place NUMBER 69%

11 Cleared leaves and pine needles from the roof and/or yard to reduce wildfire risk LEAVESF 

64%

12 Cleared leaves and pine needles from the roof and/or yard to improve the appearance of the 

property LEAVES 47%

13 Mowed long grasses around the home to reduce wildfire risk MOWF 65%

14 Mowed long grasses around the home to improve the appearance of the property MOW 47%

15 None of the above  Skip to Question 8 NONE 3%

Section 3: In this section, we are interested in the kinds of changes that have been made to your 

house, other buildings on your property, or the land surrounding your home. We are also 

interested in any changes you might have made to reduce wildfire risk.
15

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

2007 Survey – Boulder County 

Patty Champ (USFS), Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Nick Flores (CU Boulder)

2. Of the actions you reported taking in the previous question, please list the number of each item you 

undertook with wildfire risk reduction in mind. (List the item numbers circled in Question 1 that were 

undertaken specifically for the purposes of reducing wildfire risk).

ACT1-ACT14 (corresponding to each of the variables above, 1=mentioned item number above;0=did 

not mention)

TIMEH (n=391)

3. In the last twelve months, how much time would you estimate members of your household including 

yourself or anyone who may have helped you, have spent working on your house or other buildings on 

your property to reduce the chances of losing your home due to a wildfire? (Circle one number)

22% 1 0 hours

50% 2 1 – 20 hours

12% 3 21 – 40 hours

17% 4 more than 40 hours

MONEYH (n=387)

4. In the last twelve months, how much money would you estimate members of your household 

including yourself or anyone who may have helped you, have spent working on your house or other 

buildings on your property to reduce the chances of losing your home due to a wildfire? (Circle one 

number)

56% 1 0 - $100

21% 2 $101 - $500

9% 3 $501 - $1000

14% 4 $1001 or more

TIMEP (n=391)

5. In the last twelve months, how much time would you estimate members of your household including 

yourself or anyone who may have helped you, have spent working on your property surrounding your 

home to reduce the chances of losing your home due to a wildfire? (Circle one number)

15% 1 0 hours

44% 2 1-20 hours

20% 3 21-40 hours

21% 4 more than 40 hours

MONEYP (n=385)

6. In the last twelve months, how much money would you estimate members of your household 

including yourself or anyone who may have helped you, have spent working on your property

surrounding your home to reduce the chances of losing your home due to a wildfire? (Circle one 

number)

53% 1 0 - $100

26% 2 $101 - $500

9% 3 $501 - $1000

12% 4 $1001 or more
16

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

2007 Survey – Boulder County 

Patty Champ (USFS), Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Nick Flores (CU Boulder)

INVEST (n=365)

7. Beyond the time and money reported in the previous four questions, are there any other significant 

investments (of time or money) that you made to your property (land or house) in order to reduce the 

risk of losing your home due to wildfire since you bought your property or started to rent? 

65% 1 No

35% 2 Yes  Please explain:

EVACPLAN (n=399)

8. Do you currently have an evacuation plan in the event of a wildfire threatening your home or 

property? (Circle one number)

36% 1 No

64% 2 Yes

EMERPLAN (n=399)

9. Do you currently have any emergency plan for reducing the risk of losing your home due to a 

wildfire that you would implement in the event of a wildfire threatening your home? (e.g., cutting trees, 

mowing lawn, using fire retardant) (Circle one number)

59% 1 No

41% 2 Yes  Please explain:

10. When deciding whether to take action to reduce the risk of loss due to wildfire on your property, 

how much of a consideration is each of the following items? (Circle one number for each)

Not a 

consideration

Strong 

consideration

Financial expense/ Cost of taken action

CONSID1 (n=396) 19% 13% 41% 12% 15%

Time it takes to implement actions 

CONSID2 (n=395) 19% 18% 37% 11% 14%

Physical difficulty of doing the work 

CONSID3 (n=397) 22% 18% 33% 13% 14%

Lack of specific information about how

To reduce risk CONSID4 (n=391) 44% 23% 21% 7% 6%

The likelihood of a wildfire being on your

 property CONSID5 (n=395) 10% 8% 30% 22% 30%
17

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

2007 Survey – Boulder County 

Patty Champ (USFS), Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Nick Flores (CU Boulder)

11. From which of the following sources have you received information from about reducing the risk of wildfire? 

(Circle all that apply)

(n=421)1=circled; 0=not circled; % reported is % circled

67% 1 Local Fire Department SOURCE1 

33% 2 Neighborhood group (homeowners group, local board, etc.) SOURCE2

43% 3 Neighbors, friends, or family members SOURCE3

46% 4 Media (newspaper, TV, radio, internet) SOURCE4

30% 5 County wildfire specialist SOURCE5

30% 6 Colorado State Forest Service SOURCE6

20% 7 U.S. Forest Service SOURCE7

5% 8 National Park Service SOURCE8

2% 9 Front Range Fuels Treatment Partnership SOURCE9

10% 10 Other  Please describe: SOURCE10

6% 11 None of the above, you have not received any information about wildfire risk. SOURCE11

12. How much confidence do you have in the accuracy of wildfire risk information provided by the following 

sources? (Circle one for each group or person)

No

Confidence

A lot of 

confidence

Local fire department SCON1 (n=382) 3% 2% 13% 22% 61%

Neighborhood group 

(homeowners group, local

board, etc.) SCON2 (n=324)

7% 12% 35% 21% 24%

Neighbors, friends, or family

Members SCON3 (n=350) 6% 13% 40% 24% 17%

Media (newspaper, TV, radio,

internet) SCON4 (n=351) 9% 15% 45% 22% 8%

Boulder County SCON5 (n=351) 6% 6% 30% 31% 27%

Colorado State Forest Service SCON6 

(n=342) 3% 4% 22% 30% 42%

U.S. Forest Service SCON7 (n=333) 5% 5% 23% 28% 39%

National Park Service SCON8 (n=288) 7% 7% 27% 25% 33%

Front Range Fuels Treatment

Partnership SCON9 (n=206) 13% 10% 33% 22% 21%

Other: SCON10 (n=25) 12% 12% 12% 16% 48%
18

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

2007 Survey – Boulder County 

Patty Champ (USFS), Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Nick Flores (CU Boulder)

1. 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 

Likely

Very 

Likely

Not 

Applicable

You would put the fire out. 

LACT1(n=392) 38% 21% 25% 7% 10% <1%

The fire department would save your 

home. LACT2 (n=398) 7% 10% 35% 23% 25% <1%

There would be some smoke 

damage to your home. LACT3 

(n=395)

2% 5% 29% 18% 46% <1%

There would be some physical 

damage to your home. LACT4 

(n=393)

3% 8% 34% 22% 33% <1%

Your home would be destroyed. 

LACT5 (n=393) 11% 25% 31% 16% 17% <1%

You would suffer financial losses due 

to the loss of business/income on your 

property. LACT6 (n=383)

37% 15% 16% 4% 16% 11%

Your trees and landscape would 

Burn. LACT7 (N=397) 2% 5% 21% 16% 56% <1%

Your pets would be harmed (include 

non-income generating livestock). 

LACT8 (N=364)

29% 18% 28% 6% 7% 13%

You would suffer financial losses due 

to the loss of income generating 

livestock. LACT9 (n=340)

61% 1% <1% 0% 2% 35%

Your crops would be damaged or lost 

(including trees). LACT10 (n=359) 39% 3% 10% 7% 21% 21%

Your neighbors’ homes would be 

damaged or destroyed. LACT11 

(n=389)

5% 10% 34% 19% 31% 1%

Your community water supply would 

be threatened. LACT12 (n=363) 34% 17% 20% 8% 12% 9%

The fire would spread to nearby 

public lands. LACT13 (n=383) 9% 8% 20% 13% 45% 4%

Section 4: In this section, we are interested in your perspectives and opinions about issues such as 

wildfire, wildfire management, and the environment. There are no correct or incorrect answers.
19

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

2007 Survey – Boulder County 

Patty Champ (USFS), Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Nick Flores (CU Boulder)

2. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about wildfire? (Circle one 

number for each statement)

Strongly 

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Naturally occurring wildfire is not the 

problem; people who choose to live in fire

prone areas are the problem. STATE1 (n=392)

7% 24% 31% 24% 14%

With proper technology, we can control most

wildfires after they have started. STATE2 (n=393) 2% 22% 29% 38% 8%

Wildfires that threaten human life should be

put out. STATE3 (n=391) 51% 40% 5% 3% 1%

Wildfires that threaten property should be put

out. STATE4 (n=395) 34% 46% 15% 4% 1%

During a wildfire, saving homes should be a

priority over saving forests. STATE5 (n=391) 32% 41% 19% 7% 2%

Wildfires are a natural part of the balance of a 

healthy forest/ecosystem. STATE6 (n=396) 47% 42% 10% <1% <1%

You do not need to take action to reduce the risk of loss due to 

wildfire because the risk is not that great. STATE7 (n=395) 2% 4% 7% 39% 48%

You do not have the time to implement wildfire risk reduction 

actions. STATE8 (n=392) 1% 7% 15% 46% 30%

You do not have the money for wildfire risk reduction actions. 

STATE9 (n=393) 3% 11% 21% 43% 22%

You do not need to act to reduce the risk of loss due to wildfire 

because you have insurance. STATE10 (n=391) 1% 2% 8% 44% 45%

You live here for the trees and will not remove any of them to 

reduce fire risk. STATE11 (n=394) 2% 5% 10% 47% 37%

A wildfire is unlikely to happen within the time period you 

expect to live here. STATE12 (n=393) 1% 10% 20% 38% 31%

Managing the wildfire danger is a government responsibility, 

not yours. STATE13 (n=393) 1% 2% 14% 49% 33%

Actions to reduce the risk of loss due to wildfire are not 

effective. STATE14 (n=393) 2% 5% 12% 48% 33%

Your property is not at risk of wildfire. STATE15 (n=392) <1% 5% 7% 46% 41%

You don’t take action to reduce the risk of loss due to wildfire 

because if a wildfire reaches your property firefighters will 

protect your home. STATE16 (n=393)

<1% 2% 9% 46% 42%

You don’t take action because adjacent properties are not treated 

leaving your actions ineffective STATE17 (n=391) 2% 5% 15% 42% 35%
20

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

2007 Survey – Boulder County 

Patty Champ (USFS), Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Nick Flores (CU Boulder)

3. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the relationship between 

humans and the environment? (Circle one number for each statement)

Strongly 

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

We are approaching the limit of the number 

Of people the earth can support. NEP1 (n=395) 34% 37% 17% 15% 7%

Humans have the right to modify the natural 

environment to suit their needs. NEP2 (n=395) 4% 18% 27% 38% 12%

When humans interfere with nature it often 

produces disastrous consequences. NEP3 (n=396) 26% 45% 18% 8% 3%

Humans are severely abusing the 

environment. NEP4 (n=396) 41% 36% 11% 8% 5%

The earth has plenty of natural resources if 

We just learn how to develop them. NEP5 

(n=396)

7% 25% 17% 36% 15%

Despite our special abilities humans are still 

subject to the laws of nature. NEP6 (n=395) 55% 41% 3% <1% <1%

Humans were meant to rule over the rest of 

nature. NEP7 (n=393) 3% 7% 14% 34% 42%

The balance of nature is very delicate and 

Easily upset. NEP8 (n=396) 39% 37% 13% 9% 2%

Humans will eventually learn enough 

about how nature works to be able to 

control it. NEP9 (n=394)

<1% 6% 17% 48% 28%

If things continue on their present course, we 

will soon experience a major ecological 

catastrophe. NEP10 (n=392)

33% 30% 19% 14% 4%
21

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

2007 Survey – Boulder County 

Patty Champ (USFS), Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Nick Flores (CU Boulder)

1. How many of each of the following types of neighboring properties (properties that share a property 

line) do you have? (Fill in the blanks)

Mean=2.56 Full time residential (owner occupied or rental) FTRES

Mean=.74 Seasonal/ part time residential (owner occupied or rental) PTRES

Mean=.32 Vacant residence VACANT

Mean=.9 Undeveloped private land UNDEV

Mean=.77 Publicly managed land (e.g., National Forest, National Park, State owned land, 

county or community land) PUBLIC

Mean=.55 Other (Please specify): OTHER

Mean=.47 Not sure what type of properties neighbor yours NOTSURE

2. How often do you interact with your neighbors (residents or land managers)? (Circle all that apply)

1=circled; 0=not circled; % reported is % circled

(n=421)

15% 1 Daily INTER1

44% 2 Weekly INTER2

30% 3 Monthly INTER3

18% 4 Yearly INTER4

6% 5 Never  Skip to Question 5 INTER5

3. In general, how would you characterize the tone of these interactions? (Circle all that apply) (n=415)

78% 1 Positive with most neighbors POSMOST

7% 2 Positive with a few neighbors POSFEW

7% 3 Negative with a few neighbors NEGFEW

<1% 4 Negative with most neighbors NEGMOST

TALKFIRE (n=371)

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

19% 1 No

81% 2 Yes

NACTION (n=392)

5. Have any of your neighbors done anything to reduce the risk of wildfire on their property? (Circle one 

number)

16% 1 No Skip to Question 8 

66% 2 Yes  Please describe: __________________________________

17% 3 Don’t know  Skip to Question 9

Section 5: In this section, please think about the properties directly across the road or alley and 

those that share a property line with yours. The following questions refer to these properties or to 

those who live there as your neighbors. If you share a property line with public land or land 

without homes or other buildings include anyone who manages this land (e.g., land managers) 

among the neighbors you consider when answering the following questions.
22

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

2007 Survey – Boulder County 

Patty Champ (USFS), Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Nick Flores (CU Boulder)

WHENNACT (n=260)

6. 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)

3% 1 I have not taken any action

14% 2 They took action before you did

21% 3 They took action after you did

0% 4 They plan to take action

50% 5 We took action around the same time

12% 6 Don’t know

WORKN (n=259)

7. 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)

48% 1 No

10% 2 Yes, on your property

10% 3 Yes, on your neighbors’ properties

32% 4 Yes, on both

SLACKER (n=322)

8. 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)

31% 1 No

55% 2 Yes

14% 3 Don’t know

9. How would you describe the vegetation on your property and your neighbors’ properties? (Circle one 

number for each)

Very 

Sparse

Very 

Dense

When you first moved into your house, the

vegetation on your property was... VEG1 (n=393) 6% 7% 39% 28% 20%

Currently, the vegetation on your property is...

VEG2 (n=395) 5% 23% 56% 13% 4%

When you first moved in, the vegetation on 

most of the properties neighboring yours was... 

VEG3 (n=392)

4% 8% 40% 28% 20%

Currently, the vegetation on most of the 

properties neighboring yours is... VEG4 (n=393) 3% 12% 50% 26% 10%
23

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

2007 Survey – Boulder County 

Patty Champ (USFS), Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Nick Flores (CU Boulder)

(n=421) 1=circled; 0=not circled; % reported is % circled

1. How often do you participate in social groups or activities (e.g., potlucks, parties, book groups, etc.) 

with members of your community (this includes neighbors)? (Circle all that apply)

1% 1 Daily SOC1

10% 2 Weekly SOC2

28% 3 Monthly SOC3

41% 4 Yearly SOC4

21% 5 Never SOC5

(n=421) 1=circled; 0=not circled; % reported is % circled

2. How often do you currently participate in community groups that make decisions about what happens 

in your community (e.g., home owner association, etc.)? (Circle all that apply)

.7% 1 Daily COM1

3% 2 Weekly COM2

13% 3 Monthly COM3

39% 4 Yearly COM4

40% 5 Never  Skip to Question 4 COM5

LEADSOC (n=226)

3. Do you currently have a leadership role in any social or community groups? (Circle one number)

77% 1 No

23% 2 Yes

SOCIAL4 (n=395)

4. Since you bought or rented your property, has your community had any wildfire-related events or are 

there any organizations that address wildfire in your community (e.g., Firewise meeting, meetings with 

fire department about wildfire, community wildfire-awareness group or event)? (Circle one number)

19% 1 No

65% 2 Yes

15% 3 Not Sure

SOCIAL5 (n=396)

5. Have you ever participated in any wildfire-related events or organizations (e.g., wildfire meeting, 

slash collection day) in your community? (Circle one number)

50% 1 No  Skip to Question 7

50% 2 Yes

Section 6: Now, we want you to think beyond just your neighbors, to consider the people who live 

near you. We refer to this as your community in the following questions. This would be your 

immediate neighborhood, subdivision, or development. If you live in a more rural setting, think of 

the surrounding area that would best approximate a neighborhood, subdivision, or development.
24

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

2007 Survey – Boulder County 

Patty Champ (USFS), Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Nick Flores (CU Boulder)

SOCIAL6 (n=194)

6. Do you play a leadership role in any of the wildfire-related events or organizations mentioned in 

Questions 4 or 5 above? (Circle one number)

82% 1 No

18% 2 Yes

7. In your opinion, how much does each of the following contribute to the current wildfire danger in 

your community? (Circle one number for each)

Not at 

all Some A lot

Build up of vegetation on public land. 

DANGER1 (n=388) 5% 10% 34% 19% 33%

The number of houses being built in 

your community. DANGER2 (n=391) 25% 27% 30% 10% 8%

Timber cutting practices. DANGER3 (n=372) 25% 25% 30% 10% 11%

Vandalism and/or arson. DANGER4 (n=384) 32% 23% 22% 12% 11%

Recreational use on public lands. 

DANGER5 (n=388) 11% 15% 30% 21% 23%

Natural processes (droughts, changes in 

vegetation over time, lightning, etc.). 

DANGER6 (n=391)

<1% 2% 14% 33% 50%

Larger environmental changes such as global 

warming. DANGER7 (n=386) 12% 14% 25% 27% 22%

Diseases and pests (bark beetle, dwarf 

mistletoe) DANGER8 (n=389) 2% 6% 19% 25% 48%

Other (please specify): 

DANGER9 (n=31.7) 7% 0% 10% 16% 68%

AGE 

1. What is your age? (Fill in the blank)

Mean=55 Years old

GENDER (n=390)

2. Are you? (Circle one number)

59% 1 Male

46% 2 Female

In this section, we ask about personal and household characteristics. As with all questions in this 

survey, your responses are completely confidential.
25

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

2007 Survey – Boulder County 

Patty Champ (USFS), Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Nick Flores (CU Boulder)

3. What is your racial or ethnic group? (Circle all that apply)

1=circled; 0=not circled; % reported is % circled

(n=374)

96% 1 White RACE1

3% 2 Black or African American RACE2

3% 3 Hispanic RACE3

3% 4 American Indian or Alaskan Native RACE4

5% 5 Asian RACE5

7% 6 Other RACE6

MARRY (n=384)

4. What best describes your current marital status? (Circle one number)

72% 1 Now Married

5% 2 Widowed

12% 3 Divorced

12% 4 Never Married

EDUC (n=389)

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

0% 1 Eighth grade or less

0% 2 Some high school

2% 3 High school graduate

13% 4 Some college or technical school

2% 5 Technical or trade school

31% 6 College graduate

11% 7 Some graduate work

41% 8 Advanced Degree (M.D., M.A., M.S., Ph.D., etc.)

EMPLOY (n=388)

6. Which of the following best describes your current employment situation? (Circle one number)

41% 1 Employed full time

9% 2 Employed part time

3% 3 Unemployed

22% 4 Self-employed

25% 5 Retired

INCOME (n=339)

7. Which of the following categories describes your household income? (Circle one number)

3% 1 Less than $25,000

5% 2 $25,000 - $34,999

11% 3 $35,000 - $49,999

16% 4 $50,000 - $74,999

18% 5 $75,000 - $99,999

17% 6 $100,000 - $124,999

22% 7 $125,000 - $200,000

9% 8 More than $200,000
26

Research Note RMRS-RN-47WWW. 2011

2007 Survey – Boulder County 

Patty Champ (USFS), Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Nick Flores (CU Boulder)

Thank you for your help. Use the space below to write any comments. 

Please return the survey in the enclosed envelope or if you lost the envelope, please return to: 

Professor Nicholas Flores

Institute of Behavioral Science 

University of Colorado at Boulder 

483 UCB 

Boulder CO 80309 
Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information 

and technology to improve management, protection, and use of the 

forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs of 

the National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and 

private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals. 

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, range, 

forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, 

community sustainability, forest engineering technology, multiple use 

economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects and diseases. 

Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications may be found 

worldwide.

Station Headquarters

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 W Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

(970) 498-1100

Research Locations

Reno, Nevada

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Rapid City, South Dakota

Logan, Utah

Ogden, Utah

Provo, Utah

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

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, 

and where applicable, sex (including gender identity and expression), marital 

status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, political 

beliefs, genetic information, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s 

income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to: USDA, Assistant Secretary for Civil 

Rights, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Stop 9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410. Or call toll-free at 

(866) 632-9992 (English) or (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (English 

Federal-relay) or (800) 845-6136 (Spanish Federal-relay). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

www.fs.fed.us/rmrs

Flagstaff, Arizona

Fort Collins, Colorado

Boise, Idaho

Moscow, Idaho

Bozeman, Montana

Missoula, Montana