1

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Research Note

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Research Note RMRS-RN-58

October 2013

Citation:

Brenkert-Smith, Hannah; Champ, Patricia A., Telligman, Amy L. 

2013. Understanding change: Wildfire in Larimer County, 

Colorado. Res. Note RMRS-RN-58. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 46 p.

Authors:

Hannah Brenkert-Smith, Research Associate, University of 

Colorado at Boulder.

Patricia A. Champ, Research Economist, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Amy L. Telligman, Post Doctoral Fellow, University of Auburn.

Understanding Change: Wildfire 

in Larimer County, Colorado

Hannah Brenkert-Smith, Patricia A. Champ, and Amy L. Telligman

Introduction

Wildfire activity continues to plague communities in the American West. Three 

causes are often identified as key contributors to the wildfire problem: accumulated 

fuels on public lands due to a history of suppressing wildfires; climate change; and 

an influx of residents into fire prone areas referred to as the wildland-urban interface 

(WUI). The latter of these contributors is the focus of much attention. Encouraging 

homeowners to mitigate wildfire risk on private land has been identified as essential to reducing the devastating effects of wildfires. However, little is known about 

WUI residents’ attitudes toward wildfire and what actions homeowners are taking to 

mitigate wildfire risk. This report presents the results of a unique homeowner survey 

administered twice over a three-year period. As such, we are able to provide some 

insight into changes in attitudes and beliefs about wildfire and concern about existing 

risk, as well as reported behavioral changes over time.

Larimer County, located along the front range of the Colorado Rockies, was ranked 

as having the second highest existing wildfire risk in Colorado and 19th in the United 

States based on the number of square miles of developed land within the WUI, the 

place where fuels transition from wildland sources to human-made sources (Gude 

and others 2008; Headwaters Economics 2010; Radeloff and others 2005). In recent 

years, the area has experienced many wildfires, some resulting in great destruction. 
2

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

The Fourmile Canyon Fire in neighboring Boulder County in 2010 destroyed 169 

homes and was at that time the most destructive wildfire, in terms of total losses, in 

Colorado’s history. That same month in Larimer County, the Reservoir Road Fire 

burned 700 acres, destroyed two homes, and led to the evacuation of 400 residents. 

Subsequently, the High Park Fire burned through portions of the study area in June 

2012 resulting in one fatality, the loss of 259 homes, and 87,284 acres burned. For 

more than 10 years, counties such as Larimer County have implemented wildfire outreach programs to encourage homeowners to mitigate the risk of losing their homes 

during a wildfire event. In 2007, WUI residents in Larimer County were surveyed 

about living with wildfire (see Champ and others 2011 for details). In 2010, the 

respondents to the 2007 survey were surveyed again to assess any changes over time 

in experience with wildfire, perceptions of risk, wildfire risk information sources, and 

mitigation efforts. In this report we summarize the panel data set created by pairing 

responses to the two surveys allowing for a comparison of the 2007 and 2010 survey 

results.

Key Findings

Overall, we find relatively stable attitudes and beliefs about wildfire, but also find 

some notable changes between 2007 and 2010. First, we find significant increases 

in concern regarding wildfire damaging respondents’ property/landscape, as well as 

increase in concern regarding the safety of pets, including non-income generating 

livestock.

Second, we find an increase in reported mitigation from 2007 to 2010. Specifically, 

we find significant increases in the implementation of three mitigation actions: thinning trees within a 30-foot perimeter of homes, thinning trees in the 30- to 100-foot 

zone from the home, and pruning branches so that the lowest is 6-10 feet from the 

ground in the same zone. Despite increases in the frequency of implementing several 

mitigation measures we find a decrease in confidence in perceived efficacy of mitigation actions in reducing risk; an increase in belief that neighbors’ untreated fuels 

affect the efficacy of action taken; and increases in reported financial obstacles to 

implementing mitigation.

While perceptions of wildfire risk appear to be relatively stable, with sources of ignition (human activity and lightning) being identified as the biggest contributors to 

chances of sustaining wildfire damages in the next five years, we also see increases in 

respondents identifying the vegetation on their own parcels, vegetation on neighbors’ 

parcels, and the physical characteristics of their own parcels (e.g. slope) as major 

contributors to the chances of wildfire damages in the next five years. The increased 

focus on property-related vegetation characteristics is notable because these are characteristics that homeowners can proactively alter to reduce fire risk.

Where we see particularly interesting changes is with expected outcomes related to 

wildfire with significant increases in respondents’ believing that a fire would result 

in their landscape burning, smoke and physical damage to their home, as well as a 

significant increase in those believing their home would be destroyed. Likewise there 

are significant increases in believing a wildfire would result in financial losses and 

harm to their pets.
3

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

Finally, an area where there is little change is in the sources of wildfire risk information and the confidence in the information from those sources. Volunteer fire 

departments remain the most common as well as the most highly regarded information source. While county wildfire specialists and the Colorado State Forest Service 

are also highly regarded information sources, the portion of respondents reporting 

receiving information from these sources continues to be relatively low.

Methods

The Surveys

In 2007, a survey, sponsored by Larimer County and the University of Colorado, was 

developed to gather information on WUI homeowners and their efforts to reduce 

the risk of loss related to wildfires, providing a snapshot of wildfire-related attitudes 

and behaviors (Champ and others 2011). In 2010, two months after the Fourmile 

Canyon Fire in neighboring Boulder County and Reservoir Road Fire in Larimer 

County a survey was administered to households who had previously participated in 

the 2007 study. The 2010 follow-up survey, sponsored by the National Center for 

Atmospheric Research and the Colorado State Forest Service, had sections designed 

to collect information on where respondents live, their experience with wildfire, their 

actions to reduce wildfire risk, attitudes about wildfire, social interactions, and demographic characteristics. The structure was largely consistent with the 2007 survey. 

One substantial change in the 2010 survey was the inclusion of an additional section 

with attitude statements about climate change and wildfire risk (see Appendix A for 

the 2010 survey and frequency report for the panel respondents).

Data Collection: Target Population and 

Sampling

In 2007, geo-coded data from the Larimer County Assessor’s Office, GIS software, 

and Larimer County fire hazard maps were used to generate a sample frame of all 

of the privately owned residential parcels with a structure in the county’s fire-prone 

areas (n = 13,880). A random sample of 1,750 households was sent an invitation to 

complete either a paper survey by mail or an electronic survey online. There were 205 

online responses and 121 mail responses for an overall response rate of 36% (326 

returned surveys; two were incomplete; a total of 324 observations) (see http://www.

fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_rn048.pdf for full details).

The initial sample for the 2010 survey consisted of the 324 Larimer County households who had completed the 2007 survey. In the fall of 2010, potential participants 

were mailed a package with a letter of invitation to participate in the survey, a survey 

booklet, and a postage paid return envelope. Participants were also given a choice 

of completing a web-based version of the survey. To participate online, respondents 

went to a web address provided in the letter of invitation. 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.
4

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

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.

Of the 324 initial letters that were mailed, 24 were not deliverable.1 One hundred 

eighty-five (17 on-line and 166 paper) were received for an overall response rate of 

61.66%.2

Pairing completed 2010 surveys with completed 2007 surveys resulted in usable data 

for 160. The responses to all of the survey questions were statistically similar between 

web and paper surveys.

The results presented in this report are based on the paired panel data set comprised 

of the subset of 2007 survey respondents who also responded in 2010. Since we 

cannot know for certain that the same household member completed the survey 

in both years, any household survey participant for which a different sex in 2010 

compared to 2007 was excluded from the analyses presented here. Twenty-two of the 

160 surveys demonstrated this inconsistency and were excluded resulting in a total of 

n = 138. As such, the number of 2007 respondents, response frequencies, and the relationships between variables may differ from the reports published on the complete 

2007 dataset (Champ and others 2011).

In this report, we use two types of analyses to report our findings. First, we report 

simple frequencies for the 2010 survey responses. Second, we use contingency table 

analyses to compare 2007 and 2010 responses and report the results of the McNemar 

test for each comparison.3 We report change over time highlighting both statistically 

significant changes as well as examples for which the study participants demonstrate 

consistency in attitude, belief, or behavior.

Descriptive Results

Characteristics of Survey Respondents

Very few of the respondents are less than 35 years old (<1%) in 2010. The average age 

of the respondent is 61 years old. Slightly more males responded (57%) than females 

(43%) and almost all of the survey respondents identified “White” as their racial 

group (92%). Seventy-five percent of the respondents are married. The respondents 

are well educated with 30% having advanced degrees.

1 We expect that the surveys were undeliverable because they were seasonal homes that do 

not receive mail delivery during the fall/winter months. Eleven of the 24 returned items were 

marked “vacant” or “seasonal” by the mail carrier. The remaining returns did not have any 

notation.

2 185 responses / 300 delivered surveys [324 sent – 24 undeliverable] = 61.66%

3 For the purposes of this report we use: p ≤ 0.10*, p ≤ 0.05**, p ≤ 0.01 ***.
5

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

Place of Residence

All of the 2010 survey respondents are full-time residents. Few of the respondents 

(14%) expect to move within the next five years. Among those reporting intent to 

move, approximately 20% indicate that wildfire is an important factor driving that 

decision while 57% report it is not important at all. Nearly all of the respondents 

(99%) own their home and almost all of the survey respondents indicate they had 

homeowner’s insurance (97%). Most of the respondents report having household 

pets (72%). Land parcel sizes range from less than a quarter acre (7%) to 200 acres 

with an average of 21 acres. The majority of survey respondents (62%) say they live 

on land parcels that are larger than two acres in size. On average, respondents have 

lived in their homes for over 16 years.

Compared to 2007 there is little change in the measures described above except a 

slight decrease in the frequency of respondents with household pets (72% in 2010 

compared to 77% in 2007); however, the difference is not statistically significant.

Neighbors

The survey included a section that asked about vegetation density on respondents’ 

own properties and on their neighbors’ properties at two different points in time: 

when they moved in and currently (Table 1). In 2010, approximately 35% of the 

survey respondents indicated the vegetation on their property was dense when they 

moved in, compared to 15% who indicated that the current vegetation is dense. 

Likewise in 2010, 39% of the respondents said that the vegetation on neighboring 

properties was dense when they moved in compared to 32% that indicate that those 

properties currently have dense vegetation. In other words, survey respondents report a reduction in the vegetation density on their property and on their neighbor’s 

property, but they report a smaller reduction in vegetation density on neighboring 

properties.

Table 1—Vegetation density.a

Percent reporting “dense” 

or “very dense” (4 or 5 on 

a 5 point scale: 1 = very 

sparse; 5 = very dense p-value for

2007 2010 McNemar’s test

When you first moved into your house, the 39 35 0.557

vegetation on your property was ....

Currently the vegetation on your property is... 19 15 0.424

When you first moved in, the vegetation on 35 39 0.428

most of the properties neighboring yours was ...

Currently, the vegetation on most of the 30 32 0.743

properties neighboring yours is ...

a The complete survey, including the response frequencies for each question can be found in Appendix A.
6

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

Reporting on vegetation density on their own and neighbors’ properties at time of 

moving in and currently did not change significantly between 2007 and 2010. This 

means that (1) respondents’ evaluations of vegetative conditions on their property at 

the time of moving in are consistent between the two survey periods; (2) their reporting of the change over time follows the same trajectory (toward sparser vegetation); 

and (3) respondents observe a comparable trend on neighbors’ properties -- though 

the rate of vegetation reduction is less. While not significant, respondents’ report 

higher vegetation on neighbors’ parcels at move in compared to what they reported 

in 2007. This may reflect a recall issue or heightened awareness of vegetation density 

that led to respondents reporting denser vegetation in the past.

Experience with Wildfire

Despite the Reservoir Road Fire and numerous other smaller fires in the area between 

2007 and 2010, we see little change in wildfire-related experiences (Table 2). Very 

few 2010 survey respondents report first-hand experience with a wildfire on their 

property (2%) or fire-related damages (4% reported smoke or fire damage). However, 

75% of the survey respondents have experience with a wildfire less than 10 miles 

from their property. In contrast, a total of 44% of respondents have either evacuated 

their residence (17%) or prepared to evacuate (27%).

Compared to 2007, there is only one significant change in experience in terms of 

knowing someone who had evacuated, which had increased by 13%. While the percent of respondents reporting they were evacuated from their home due to a wildfire 

or threat of wildfire increased from 13% in 2007 to 17% in 2010, this difference is 

not statistically significant.

Table 2—Wildfire-related experiences.

Percent reporting 

“Yes” p-value for

2007 2010 McNemar’s test

First-hand experience with wildfire 3 2 1.000

on their property

Smoke or fire damage to property 3 4 0.727

Experience with wildfire less than 75 75 1.000

10 miles from their property

Evacuated from current residence 13 17 0.267

due to a wildfire or threat of wildfire

Prepared to evacuate 27 27 1.000

Know someone evacuated in last 5 years 45 58 0.003

Know someone whose residence was 20 24 0.500

damaged or lost in last 5 years
7

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

Over half of the 2010 respondents (58%) know someone who had been evacuated 

in the last five years and almost a quarter (24%) know someone whose residence was 

damaged or destroyed in the last five years.

In 2010 most of the survey respondents (85%) indicate they were somewhat or very 

aware of wildfire risk when they bought their current residence (Table 3). While 

not significant, we see interesting changes in reported awareness of wildfire risk at 

time of purchase when comparing 2007 to 2010 results. Thirteen percent report not 

being aware of wildfire risk in 2010 compared to 9% in 2007. There is also a drop 

from 53% reporting being very aware of wildfire risk at time of purchase in 2007 

compared to 41% reporting that level of awareness at time of purchase in 2010. We 

speculate that the increase in those reporting not being aware of wildfire risk when 

they purchased their home, as well as the decrease in those reporting being very 

aware, may be the result of respondents reflecting on what they knew in 2007 compared to what they knew in 2010 after a bad wildfire season in Colorado. In other 

words, we may be observing a realization by respondents that they knew a lot less 

about wildfire than they initially thought.

Table 3—Wildfire risk awareness.

How aware of wildfire risk when you bought/decided 

to rent your current residence or property? 2007 2010

- - - - Percent - - - - 

Not aware 9 13

Somewhat aware 37 44

Very aware 53 41

McNemar-Bowker Test = 10.051; p-value = 0.123

Attitudes Toward Wildfire

We examined attitudes toward wildfire by considering respondents’ levels of concern 

about what might be damaged by a wildfire (Table 4). In 2010, the highest level of 

concern is expressed about wildfire damaging respondents’ homes and their property/

landscape with 39% and 38% reporting a high level of concern, respectively. Thirtyfour percent of survey respondents also express concern that a wildfire would damage 

public land. There is also a fair bit of concern regarding the safety of pets in the event 

of a wildfire. Respondents are least concerned about a wildfire impacting their health 

(22% report high level of concern), local water sources (22% report high level of 

concern), or their ability to earn an income (12% report high level of concern).

Compared to 2007, survey respondents express significantly higher levels of concern 

regarding a wildfire affecting two items. There is a 16% increase in those with a high 

level of concern about their pets and an 11% increase in those who express a high 

level of concern about wildfire affecting their property/landscape.

Attitudes were also measured with 17 statements about wildfire. Respondents were 

asked to rate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with each statement. Here we 

report the four statements with the most support along with the statements that had 

the least support (Table 5; see Appendix B for full set of 17 attitude statements). 
8

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

Table 4—Wildfire concerns.

Percent reporting 4 or 5

(1 = not concerned at all; 

How concerned are you about wildfire 5 = extremely concerned) p-value for

damaging or affecting the items listed below? 2007 2010 McNemar’s test

Your house or other buildings on your property 37 39 0.720

Your property/landscape 27 38 0.032

Public lands near your home 32 34 0.749

Your pets 17 33 0.000

Your health or your family’s health 17 22 0.248

Local water sources 15 22 0.136

Your ability to earn income 8 12 0.481

Table 5—Attitudes about wildfire.

Percent reporting 4 or 5

(1 = strongly disagree;

5 = strongly agree) p-value for

2007 2010 McNemar’s test

Most support

Wildfires that threaten human life should be put out. 95 90 0.302

Wildfires are a natural part of the balance of a 88 84 0.238

healthy forest/ecosystem. 

Wildfires that threaten property should be put out. 81 75 0.265

During a wildfire, saving homes should be a priority 64 72 0.024

over saving forests. 

Least support

Actions to reduce the risk of loss due to wildfire 2 5 0.180

are not effective.

You do not need to act to reduce the risk of loss due 5 4 1.000

to wildfire because you have insurance.

You don’t take action to reduce the risk of loss due to 3 4 1.000

wildfire because if a wildfire reaches your property 

firefighters will protect your home.

Managing the wildfire danger is a government 2 2 1.000

responsibility, not yours.
9

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

In both 2007 and 2010, we find the most support for three statements regarding suppression when wildfires threaten human life, property, and homes. In contrast, the 

fourth most supported statement reads: “Wildfires are a natural part of the balance of 

a healthy forest/ecosystem.” These seemingly contradictory statements lie at the root 

of the challenges associated with managing wildfire and wildfire risk at the wildlandurban interface: how can a fire-prone and populated landscape be managed?

The statements receiving the least support indicate that there is widespread agreement that wildfire risk reduction actions are effective, that respondents do not believe 

that having insurance is substitute for reducing risk, and that respondents do not 

believe that the possibility of firefighter protection is not a substitute for taking action to reduce risk. Further, it is apparent that very few respondents believe that fire 

management rests with the government and not homeowners.

All but three of the survey responses to the 17 attitude statements are statistically 

similar between the 2007 and 2010 panel data reflecting relatively stable attitudes 

about wildfire (see Appendix B). First, we see an 8% increase in those agreeing/

strongly agreeing that during a wildfire, saving homes should be a priority over saving 

forests. Second, we see a 14% increase in those agreeing/strongly agreeing that they 

don’t have the money required to reduce risk. This finding appears to be reflecting 

the economic downturn after 2007; however, this change may also be attributed to 

respondents developing a fuller understanding of the actions and expense required to 

mitigate. Further, we see a small but significant increase from 2007 in respondents 

agreeing/strongly agreeing that lack of mitigation action by neighbors makes their 

own actions not effective (a 6% increase). While this change is statistically significant 

it is worth noting that the level of agreement is very low in both years.

Perceptions of Wildfire Risk

In assessing perceptions of risk, respondents were asked about the extent to which 

a number of factors contribute to the chances of a wildfire damaging their property 

in the next five years. Here we discuss the items that respondents perceive to be major contributors to wildfire risk (Table 6). In 2010, respondents focus primarily on 

ignitions: human activity (66%) and weather-related natural starts such as lightning 

(65%) as the greatest contributors. In assessing the characteristics of their own and 

neighboring properties, 53% of respondents report that their own vegetation and 

52% report that vegetation on neighboring properties is a major contributor to the 

chances of wildfire damaging their property.

Compared to 2007, survey respondents’ perceptions of wildfire risk in 2010 is statistically different on four of the nine assessed factors, each of which was specific to their 

property: (1) vegetation on their property, and (2) vegetation on their neighbors’ 

properties, (3) physical characteristics of their property other than vegetation (e.g., 

steep incline) and (4) availability of roads for access and egress. Twenty-two percent 

more survey respondents report they think vegetation on their property is a major 

contributor to the chances of a wildfire damaging their property in the next five years. 
10

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

Eighteen percent more survey respondents believe that the physical characteristics 

of their property (e.g., steep inclines) are a major contributor to their wildfire risk. 

While non-vegetative parcel characteristics, such as steep incline, cannot largely be 

altered, this result suggests a better understanding of what contributes to wildfire 

risk. Further, vegetative reduction can be used to decrease the extent to which nonalterable factors, such as how a structure is sighted on a parcel, affect wildfire risk (i.e., 

targeting more intensive fuel reduction on the downhill side of a structure).

Eleven percent more respondents report that neighboring vegetation is a major contributor to their chances of wildfire risk. This finding suggests that in 2010 the survey 

respondents might have been considering the risks they face with a slightly broader 

lens than they did when they completed the 2007 survey. Their attention to the 

extent to which neighboring properties may affect their own risk may be an understanding critical to galvanizing community-level planning. In this vein, nine percent 

more respondents identified roads for access and egress as a major contributor indicating there may be increasing support for community-level efforts.

Somewhat surprisingly, we see little change in respondents’ assessments of the contribution the physical characteristics of their structure may make to wildfire risk, with 

still less than one third of respondents (only a 5% increase) reporting that physical 

characteristics of their structures contribute a lot to wildfire risk. This represents an 

area in which additional education and outreach efforts may be needed.

Table 6—Contributors to chances of wildfire damaging property in the next 5 years.

Percent reporting 4 or 5 

(1 = does not contribute;

5 = major contributor) p-value for

2007 2010 McNemar’s test

Human activity 62 66 0.337

Weather-related natural starts (e.g., 70 65 0.405

lightening)

Vegetation on your property 31 53 0.000

Vegetation on your neighbors’ properties 41 52 0.017

Vegetation on nearby National Forest or 50 43 0.233

National Park

Physical characteristics of your property 22 40 0.000

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

Availability of roads for you to exit 31 40 0.065

community and emergency vehicles to 

enter community

Vegetation on other nearby public land 37 37 1.000

(e.g., Open Space or greenbelt)

Physical characteristics of your house or 23 28 0.256

other buildings (e.g., roofing or siding)
11

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

Another interesting finding is the decrease in respondents identifying vegetation on 

public lands (National Forest/Park) as a major contributor to wildfire risk. Those 

identifying National Forest/Park land as a major contributor drops from 50% in 

2007 to 43% in 2010 though this shift is not significant. Whether this change results 

from targeted fuel reduction efforts undertaken on public lands adjacent to WUI 

communities in Larimer County or other factors is unknown at this point, but constitutes an interesting shift that warrants further attention.

To better understand how respondents think they might be affected by a wildfire, 

we asked them to rate the likelihood of a series of outcomes if there was a wildfire 

on their property. Here we present the frequency of those reporting the queried outcomes are likely or very likely (Table 7). We see that in 2010, the outcome thought 

to be most likely if a wildfire were to occur on their own property is that their trees 

or landscape would burn (74%). Similarly, 70% of respondents believe that there is 

a high likelihood that there would be smoke damage. Over half of the respondents 

believe that there is a high likelihood that the fire department would save their home 

(58%). Though 57% of respondents believe that there is a high likelihood that a fire 

would result in some physical damage to their home, only 32% believe their home 

would be destroyed.

Table 7—Likelihood of outcomes if there is a wildfire on your property.

Percent reporting 4 or 5 

(1 = not at all likely; 

5 = very likely) p-value for

2007 2010 McNemar’s test

Your trees and landscape would burn. 62 74 0.014

There would be some smoke damage 

to your home. 55 70 0.007

The fire department would save your 

home. 53 58 0.360

There would be some physical damage 

to your home. 43 57 0.015

Your home would be destroyed. 24 32 0.043

You would suffer financial losses due to the 

loss of business/income on your property. 16 31 0.003

You would put the fire out. 26 26 1.000

Your pets would be harmed (include 12 22 0.017

non-income generating livestock).
12

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

In comparing 2010 to 2007, we see that expectations that a wildfire would result in 

damage to trees and landscape increase while remaining at the top of the list. Seventyfour percent of 2010 respondents believe there is a high likelihood that a wildfire 

would result in such losses compared to 62% in 2007. Between 2007 and 2010, 

we see an increase in the reported likelihood of other several possible fire-related 

outcomes. In 2010, 70% of respondents believe there is a high likelihood that a fire 

could result in smoke damage compared to 55% of 2007 respondents. We also see 

a significant (14%) increase in those who believe that there is a high likelihood that 

a fire on their property would result in their homes being damaged and marginally 

significant increase (8%) of those who believe that there is a high likelihood that a fire 

would result in destruction of their home. We also see a significant increase in those 

believing that a wildfire would result in their pets being harmed with 22% believing 

their pets could be harmed in 2010 compared to only 12% in 2007.

While likelihood of financial losses is one of three least likely outcomes, we do see a 

significant increase (15%) in those believing that there is a high likelihood that would 

result in financial losses. Finally, it is notable that the two items where there is no 

significant increase in perceptions of likely outcomes were related to firefighting. We 

see a slight increase (5%) in those that believe that there is a high likelihood that the 

fire department would save their home and no change in the percent in the perceived 

likelihood that respondents would put the fire out themselves.

Wildfire Risk Information Sources

Respondents were asked about two dimensions of wildfire risk information. They 

were asked about sources from which they had received wildfire risk information and 

confidence in the accuracy of each information source (Table 8). In 2010, the local 

fire department (59%) is the most frequently reported source of information about 

wildfire risk, and at 81% reporting a lot of confidence it is one of the three information sources with the highest rating with respect to confidence in the accuracy of the 

information. The county wildfire specialist and the Colorado State Forest Service 

are the other most highly rated information sources with respect to confidence in 

accuracy of information (at 79% and 81% reporting a lot of confidence, respectively). 

The second most commonly reported information source is the media (52%), but it 

is the least highly rated information source with respect to confidence in accuracy of 

information (37%). Neighborhood groups are reported as an information source by 

38% of the survey respondents; neighbors, family, and friends are reported to provide 

information to 33% of the survey respondents. Similar percentages of survey respondents express high confidence in both neighborhood groups (42%) and neighbor and 

friends (40%). About a fifth of respondents indicate they received information about 

reducing the risk of wildfire from expert sources including the Colorado State Forest 

Service (27%), U.S. Forest Service (21%), and the Larimer County wildfire specialist 

(20%). All three of these sources have high ratings in terms of confidence in the accuracy of information provided (ranging from 67% to 81%).
13

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

In 2010, survey respondents express statistically similar levels of both information 

sources used and confidence in the accuracy of most of the sources compared to 

2007. There was a statistically significant (8%) increase in those reporting to have 

received information from their local volunteer fire department. The two statistically 

significant increases in reported accuracy are a 7% increase in those reporting high or 

very high confidence in Media and a 14% increase in those reporting a high or very 

high level of confidence in the Colorado State Forest Service. While we see the highest confidence level is in the accuracy of the information provided by the Colorado 

State Forest Service, only about a quarter of our respondents ever received information from this source. It appears that the high levels of use and confidence in local 

expert sources of information, specifically local volunteer fire departments and the 

county wildfire specialist, highlights the importance of local programs that engage in 

education and outreach efforts.

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 Firewise4 recommendations and consultation with the Larimer County wildfire specialist, a list of 12 

wildfire risk-reducing actions was included in the survey (Table 9). Respondents 

were asked to indicate which actions they had undertaken on their property. As in 

2007, we see that wildfire risk mitigation is a matter of degree, not an all-or-nothing 

proposition. In 2010, the action taken by the highest number of respondents (79%) 

is “Mowed long grasses around the home to reduce wildfire risk.” Mowing grasses, 

along with clearing leaves (66% of 2010 respondents) represent two of the least costly 

and least physically challenging actions that homeowners can take to reduce risk 

within the home ignition zone (Cohen 2000). Similarly, 76% of respondents report 

having installed a visible house number.

4 http://www.firewise.org/~/media/Firewise/Files/Pdfs/Toolkit/FW_TK_Tips.pdf

Table 8—Information sources and confidence in accuracy (McNemar test: p ≤ 0.10*, p ≤0.05**, 

p ≤0.01 ***). a

Information Accuracy

Percent reporting having Percent reporting 4 or 5 on

received information 5 point scale (1 = no confidence; 

from each source 5 = high confidence)

Source 2007 2010 2007 2010

Volunteer fire department 51 59** 79 81

Media 52 52 30 37*

Neighborhood group 33 38 41 42

Neighbors, friends, family 27 33 36 40

County wildfire specialist 21 20 75 79

Colorado State Forest Service 25 27 67 81**

U.S. Forest Service 24 21 64 74

National Park Service 6 6 59 67

None 12 10 – – 

a This table is sorted from high to low based on reporting of the accuracy question.
14

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

Sixty-nine percent of the survey respondents report having removed dead or overhanging branches in areas within a 30-foot perimeter around their house or other 

buildings; 67% thinned trees or shrubs within a 30-foot perimeter around their 

house or other buildings; and 59% limbed trees up to about six feet in the 30-foot 

perimeter. In terms of structural changes, installing fire resistant siding on their house 

or other buildings and installing screening over roof vents are the two measures implemented least frequently (20% and 39%, respectively). One shortcoming of these 

data is that we do not know the actual wildfire risk on each parcel. Therefore we cannot make any assessment of whether there is a relationship between mitigation level 

and wildfire risk ratings. In other words, we do not know if residents with the highest 

wildfire risk are the most active at taking action to mitigate that risk.

While the levels of completion for every mitigation action increase in 2010 compared 

to 2007, the increase is statistically significant for six of the 12 wildfire mitigation actions. Eighteen percent more survey respondents report they had taken action to thin 

trees and shrubs within a 30-foot perimeter around their house or other buildings 

in 2010 compared to 2007. Similarly, in the area 30-100 feet from homes or other 

buildings 14% more report thinning trees and shrubs and 11% more report limbing 

trees up to about six feet from the ground in 2010 compared to 2007. Interestingly, 

Table 9—Reported mitigation actions.a

Percent reporting 

completion/maintenance

of each action p-value for

Mitigation actions 2007 2010 McNemar’s test

Mowed long grasses within 30 feet of home 72 79 0.136

Install visible house number 72 76 0.473

Remove dead or overhanging branches 61 69 0.193

within 30 feet of home

Thin trees and shrubs within 30 feet of home 49 67 0.001

Clear leaves and needles from roof and/or yard 57 66 0.111

within 30 feet of home

Prune limbs 6-10 feet from ground within 50 59 0.096

30 feet of home

Install fire resistant roof 50 58 0.090

Thin trees and shrubs 30-100 feet of home 40 54 0.008

Remove dead or overhanging branches 51 51 1.000

30-100 feet of home

Prune limbs 6-10 feet from ground 30-100 feet 38 49 0.036

of home

Install screens over roof vents 25 39 0.003

Install fire resistant siding 18 20 0.815

a Participants were allowed several options related to each possible mitigation action including whether or 

not the previous owner had completed the action as well as whether or not the action was applicable to their 

property. Further, in the 2010 survey we added several mitigation actions that had not been asked in 2007. 

Here we present the data for which comparisons can be made. For reporting on the additional items please 

see Appendix A.
15

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

even though screen installation is one of the least implemented measures in years, 

there is a 14% increase in screen installation between 2007 and 2010. It is notable 

that these items require more effort than mowing or clearing leaves or needles, which 

may indicate that participants are exerting more effort in their mitigation actions. 

Finally, 8% more respondents reported having installed a fire resistant roof, a significant and costly improvement.

Respondents were asked how important various factors were in their mitigation decisions (Table 10). Overall, the likelihood of wildfire being on their property (52%) 

and cost of action (49%) are the strongest considerations when deciding whether or 

not to take action to reduce risk. Notably, only 15% of respondents reported that 

lack of specific information is a strong consideration.

Compared to 2007, there is a statistically significant increase in respondents indicating that likelihood of fire being on their property is a strong consideration when 

deciding to take action to reduce the risk of loss due to wildfire from 40% in 2007 to 

52% in 2010. The largest and most significant increases, however, are in the extent 

to which cost (20% increase), physical difficulty (20% increase), and time (18% 

increase) are strong considerations when deciding to take action on their property.

Table 10—Considerations for taking action.

Percent reporting 4 or 5 

(1 = not a consideration; 

5 = strong consideration) p-value for

2007 2010 McNemar’s test

The likelihood of a wildfire being on your property 40 52 0.023

Financial expense/ cost of taking action 29 49 0.000

Physical difficulty of doing the work 24 44 0.000

Time it takes to implement actions 19 37 0.001

Lack of specific information about how to reduce risk 18 15 0.523

Determinants of Mitigation Actions

To better understand who adopts different mitigation strategies, we first examined 

the relationship between demographic characteristics of respondents and mitigation. 

We categorized respondents into groups based on the number of mitigation actions 

they reported implementing: low mitigators (implemented 0 to 4 measures), midlevel mitigators (5 to 9 measures), and high mitigators (10 or more measures). We 

see a significant differences in mitigation levels between 2007 and 2010 (Table 11) 

and find an increase from 15% in 2007 to 26% in 2010 of those who fall into the 

category of high mitigators, or those reporting having implemented 10 or more mitigation actions.
16

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

We then conducted contingency table analyses using 2010 data to examine the relationship between mitigation levels and other survey measures. Here we report the 

Pearson’s chi-square value and the p-values. The results of these analyses shed light 

on relationships between mitigation levels and other variables but do not allow for 

attribution of causal effects.

Characteristics of survey respondents and Mitigation

We do not find any significant relationships between characteristics of respondents 

in terms of gender, income, marital status, education, or employment status and 

mitigation level. The exception to this is the relationship between age and mitigation 

level for which we find that the relationship between age quartiles and 2010 level of 

mitigation are significant but not unidirectional (Pearson’s chi-square = 13.338; p = 

0.038). In other words, low mitigators tend to be the youngest and oldest responders 

while the mid-level and high mitigators fell into the middle two age categories.

Place of Residence and Mitigation

There is not a statistically significant relationship between mitigation level and lot size 

or intent to move in the next five years.

Neighbors and Mitigation

A statistically significant relationship is not found between perceptions of respondents 

own and neighbors’ vegetation density, or talking with neighbors about wildfire risk 

and mitigation outcomes. We did find, however, significant differences in mitigation 

level and whether or not neighbors had taken action to reduce risk. We see that 70% 

of mid-level and 73% of high mitigators had neighbors taking action compared to 

only 30% of low mitigators (Pearson’s chi-square = 18.594; p = 0.001). Interestingly, 

we see the converse and statistically significant relationships when asked whether 

or not respondents had neighbors who were not taking action to address sources of 

wildfire risk such as dense vegetation. We see that 82% of high mitigators and 52% 

of mid-level mitigators compared to only 39% of low mitigators report having neighbors were not taking action to address dense vegetation or other sources of wildfire 

risk (Pearson’s chi-square = 14.512; p = 0.006).

Table 11—Mitigation level by year.

2007 2010

- - - Percent - - -

Low (0–4 actions completed) 34 26

Mid (5–9 actions completed) 51 48

High (10+ actions completed) 15 26

McNemar-Bowker test = 9.733; p-value = 0.021.
17

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

Experiences with Wildfire and Mitigation

We do not see a significant relationship between any wildfire-related experience and 

mitigation including evacuation or preparing to evacuate, having suffered wildfirerelated damages, wildfire experience at a previous residence, or knowing someone 

who had evacuated or suffered wildfire-related losses and mitigation level. Similarly, 

we find no relationship between risk awareness and mitigation activity.

Attitudes toward Wildfire and Mitigation

When we examined the relationships between the 17 statements about wildfire risk 

and mitigation levels, we find statistically significant relationships between three of 

the items and the mitigation levels. Interestingly, these relationships suggest that low 

and high mitigators are more alike compared to mid-level mitigators.

Compared to low and high mitigators, mid-level mitigators are less likely to agree 

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

wildfire because the risk is not that great (Pearson’s chi-square = 11.017; p = 0.004).

In contrast, compared to low and high mitigators, mid-level mitigators are more likely 

to agree with the statements:

•	 Wildfires that threaten property should be put out. (Pearson’s chi-square = 

6.135; p = 0.047)

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

(Pearson’s chi-square = 9.004; p = 0.011)

While overall support for the statement: “You live here for the trees and will not remove any of them to reduce fire risk” is low in 2010, low and mid-level mitigators are 

more likely to agree (15% and 6% agreement, respectively) with the statement compared to high mitigators among whom there is no support (Pearson’s chi-square = 

5.844; p = 0.054).

Although we find significant changes related to factors considered when deciding 

to take action to reduce risk (presented in Table 10), we did not find a significant 

relationship between level of mitigation actions and the five factors presented in the 

survey as considerations (e.g., cost, time, etc.) when deciding to take action to reduce 

the risk of loss due to wildfire on their property.

Perceptions of Wildfire Risk and Mitigation

When considering the relationship between the expected outcomes of a wildfire 

(items in Table 7) and mitigation levels, it appears that low mitigators (55%) and 

mid-level (68%) mitigators were more likely to believe that it was likely or very likely 

that their homes would be damaged than high mitigators (only 36%). These differences are statistically significant (Pearson’s chi-square = 8.808; p = 0.012). Further, 

39% of low mitigators and mid-level mitigators believe that a fire on their property 

would likely result in their homes being destroyed compared to only 12% of high 
18

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

mitigators. These differences are also statistically significant (Pearson’s chi-square = 

8.831; p = 0.012) and indicate that study participants who are high mitigators believe 

that their actions are protective. These findings may indicate that high mitigators feel 

they have effectively mitigated their risk.

We also see statistical differences among mitigation level based on the extent to which 

respondents believe that it there is a high likelihood that a wildfire would result in 

financial losses due to the loss of business/income on their property. Twenty-seven 

percent of low mitigators and 13% of high mitigators believe it is likely or very likely 

compared to 42% of mid-level mitigators (Pearson’s chi-square = 8.195; p = 0.017).

Finally, we see no significant differences across mitigation level in beliefs regarding 

likelihood of the landscape burning, pets being harmed, or neighbors’ homes being damaged. At least 70% of each group believe that their landscape would burn 

(Pearson’s chi-square = .329; p = 0.848) while most believe that their pets would not 

be harmed (Pearson’s chi-square = 1.227; p = 0.542). The groups are almost evenly 

split between those who believe their neighbors’ homes would experience damage 

and those that believe otherwise (Pearson’s chi-square = 1.358; p = 0.507).

When we examined the relationship between perceived contributors to wildfire risk 

(items in Table 7) and the amount of mitigation action taken by survey respondents 

we see no significant relationships. Similarly, there are no significant associations between reported concern in 2010 and mitigation levels (items in Table 4).

Wildfire Risk Information Sources and Mitigation

In comparing mitigation levels and having received wildfire information from various 

sources we see some significant differences. Twenty-eight percent of low mitigators 

and 34% of mid-level mitigators compared to 54% of high mitigators report having 

received information from neighborhood groups (Pearson’s chi-square = 5.934; p = 

0.051). Only 17% of low mitigators and 29% of high mitigators compared to 43% 

of mid-level mitigators report receiving wildfire information from neighbors, friends, 

or family (Pearson’s chi-square = 7.897; p = 0.019). Interestingly, we see that 34% of 

mid-level mitigators received information from the USFS compared to only 8% of 

low and 9% of high mitigators (Pearson’s chi-square = 13.908; p = 0.001). And not 

surprisingly, we see that over 19% of low mitigators report not receiving any wildfire 

information from any sources compared to 6% of mid-level and 9% of high mitigators (Pearson’s chi-square = 4.791; p = 0.091).

There are no significant differences between mitigation level and reported confidence 

in wildfire risk information sources.

Climate And Wildfire

Given the growing scientific evidence linking climate change and increased wildfire 

activity (Westerling 2006; Climate Central 2012), we were interested in understanding how those living in fire-prone areas understand the link. As such, in 2010 a series 

of questions was added that specifically address climate and wildfire to the survey. 
19

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

Since these questions were not asked in 2007, we cannot examine change over time. 

However, the data allow us to examine the portion of survey respondents agreeing 

with a series of climate-related statements as well as the relationship with their stated 

climate beliefs and their reported wildfire mitigation behaviors.

Overall, we see widespread agreement that climate change is real and little support 

for the assertion that climate change is a hoax (Table 12). We also see that the majority of respondents believe that there is scientific consensus on the existence of 

climate change and almost half believe there is scientific consensus on the anthropogenic nature of climate change. Only 37% of respondents, however, feel that they are 

knowledgeable about climate change.

With regard to the climate-wildfire link we see that half of respondents believe that 

climate change has already increased the risk but less than 19% believe that climate 

change will increase future risk. Importantly, only 9% of survey respondents believe 

that climate change and wildfire risk are not related, indicating that on the whole 

survey respondents recognize the climate/wildfire link that is consistently being documented in research on the American West.

Table 12—Climate change beliefs and mitigation level.

Test of

Percent reporting association

4 or 5 between climate

(1= strongly change beliefs

disagree; and level of

5 = strongly wildfire

agree) mitigation

Pearson’s

2010 chi-square p-value

Climate change is real 67 6.559 0.161

Most scientists agree that climate change exists 64 0.790 0.674

Humans are largely responsible for climate change 51 5.600 0.061

Climate change has increased the risk of wildfires 

in Boulder and Larimer counties 50 5.070 0.079

Most scientists agree climate change is caused 

by humans 47 0.390 0.823

I know a lot about climate change 37 0.862 0.650

I am skeptical about the existence of 

climate change 21 5.356 0.069

Climate change has not yet increased wildfire 

risk in Larimer and Boulder counties but it 

will in the future 19 0.924 0.630

Climate change is a hoax 14 9.167 0.010

Climate change and wildfire risk are not related 9 0.962 0.618
20

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

As views on climate and wildfire relate to mitigation outcome, we see statistically 

significant relationships in four statements. We see the strongest relationship between agreement with the statement, “Climate change is a hoax” and mitigation 

level. Among those who agree, 50% are high mitigators, 44% are mid-level and only 

6% are low mitigators. Demonstrating a similar pattern, among those agreeing with 

the statement, “I am skeptical about the existence of climate change,” 41% are high 

mitigators and 44% are mid-level but only 15% are low mitigators.

Demonstrating a different pattern, we see that among those who agree or strongly 

agree with the statement “Humans are largely responsible for climate change,” 31% 

are low mitigators, 52% are mid-level, and only 16% are high mitigators. The pattern 

is repeated with those agreeing with the statement, “Climate change has increased 

the risk of wildfires in Boulder and Larimer Counties,” among whom 32% are low 

mitigators, 51% are mid-level mitigators, and only 17% are high mitigators.

While the portion of respondents that may be characterized as “skeptics” by agreeing 

that climate change is a hoax and being skeptical about climate change (14% and 

21%, respectively) is low, finding that skepticism is related to taking more action is 

surprising and suggests that further research into the relationship between environmental perceptions and taking action to reduce risk is warranted.

Summary

This data set provides the unique ability to examine changes in attitudes, beliefs, 

and behaviors over time by presenting a paired household data set from surveys conducted in 2007 and 2010. Overall, we see significant increases in overall concern 

about wildfire risk and changes in perceptions of likely outcomes associated with 

wildfire events.

The data from this survey, along with the companion data from Boulder County 

(See RN ## TBA) demonstrate the value of collecting data beyond the community 

case-study scale. While we see some consistency across the two counties over the two 

survey periods, we also see some differences in trajectory in the responses from the 

two counties – the extent to which the differences are related to policy-level differences between the counties, the unfolding of major wildfire events in one county and 

not the other, or a combination of these and other factors remains to be seen but 

provides interesting avenues for future inquiry.

Most notable, perhaps, is that we see that survey respondents are aware of wildfire 

risk and are continuing to take action to reduce risk and are not simply passive in the 

face of escalating risk.
21

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by funding from the National Center for Atmospheric 

Research (NCAR), the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS), the Rocky Mountain 

Research Station and the University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science. 

Particular thanks go to the Advanced Study Program at NCAR for their support of 

this project as well as to Judy Serby at the CSFS.

References

Champ, Patricia A.; Brenkert-Smith, Hannah; Flores, Nicholas. 2011. Living with 

wildfire in Larimer County, Colorado 2007. Res. Note RMRS-RN-48. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 26 p.

Climate Central. 2012. Age of western wildfires, http://www.climatecentral.org/

wgts/wildfires/Wildfires2012.pdf.

Cohen, J. 2000. Preventing disaster: Home ignitability in the wildland-urban interface. Journal of Forestry. 98:15-21.

Gude, P., R. Rasker, and J. van den Noort. 2008. Potential for future development on 

fire-prone lands. Journal of Forestry. 106(4): 198-205.

Headwaters Economics 2010. http://headwaterseconomics.org/pubs/wildfire/allex.

php.

Radeloff, V.C., R.B. Hammer, S.I. Stewart, J.S. Fried, S.S. Holcomb, and J.F. 

McKeefy. 2005. The wildland-urban interface in the United States. Ecological 

Applications. 15(3): 799-805.

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming 

and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity. Science. 313: 

940-943.
22

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

Appendix	
  A:	
  Larimer	
  County	
  2010	
  Survey

Living with Wildfire in Colorado

University	
  of	
  Colorado	
  at	
  Boulder

Panel	
  subset:	
  N =	
  138

Mode	
  of	
  response:	
  Paper	
  126	
  (91.3%);	
  Web	
  12	
  (8.7%)

Percentage	
  of	
  Larimer	
  respondents	
  subsequently	
  in	
  High	
  Park	
  fire	
  evacuation	
  zone:	
  26.8%	
  (37	
  of	
  138)
23

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

This	
  survey	
  is	
  a	
  follow-­‐up	
  to	
  a	
  2007	
  survey	
  conducted	
  in	
  the	
  fire-­‐prone	
  areas	
  of	
  Boulder	
  and	
  Larimer	
  

Counties.	
  Either	
  you,	
  someone	
  in	
  your	
  residence,	
  or	
  the	
  previous	
  owner	
  of	
  your	
  residence	
  participated	
  in	
  

the	
  2007	
  survey.	
  Regardless	
  of	
  whether	
  or	
  not	
  you	
  completed	
  the	
  previous	
  survey,	
  we	
  invite	
  you	
  to	
  

share	
  your	
  experiences	
  and	
  perspectives	
  on	
  living	
  in	
  a	
  fire	
  prone	
  area

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	
  home	
  located	
  in	
  the	
  fire	
  prone	
  area	
  of	
  Boulder	
  or	
  

Larimer	
  County. We	
  refer	
  to	
  this	
  home	
  as	
  your	
  current	
  residence.

1.1.	
  Do	
  you	
  recall	
  completing	
  the	
  2007	
  survey?	
  (Circle	
  one	
  number) 2007	
  (n =	
  136)

1	
   No	
  (30.9%)

2	
   Yes	
  (69.1%)

1.2. Do	
  you	
  own	
  or	
  rent	
  your	
  current	
  residence? (Circle	
  one	
  number) OWNRENT	
  (n =	
  137)

1 Own	
  (99.3%)

2 Rent	
  (.7%)

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

______ FULLTIME_______ Year	
  moved	
  in	
  (n =	
  130)	
  Mean	
  tenure =	
  16.85	
  years

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

___	
  YRBUILD____	
  Year	
  current	
  residence	
  was	
  built	
  (n =	
  138)	
  Mean	
  age	
  of	
  structure =	
  28.40	
  years
24

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

1.5. Do	
  you	
  have	
  homeowner’s	
  or	
  renter’s	
  insurance? (Circle	
  one	
  number) INSURE	
  (n =	
  138)

1 No	
  (2.9%)

2 Yes	
  (97.1%)	
  

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

(n =	
  137)	
  Mean =	
  1.98

___OVER18______ Number	
  of	
  people	
  over the	
  age	
  of	
  18	
  living	
  in	
  your	
  current	
  residence

(n =	
  75)	
  Mean =	
  .41

____UNDER18_______ Number	
  of	
  people	
  under the	
  age	
  of	
  18	
  living	
  in	
  your	
  current	
  residence

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

=	
  137)

1 No	
  (27.7%)

2 Yes	
  (72.3%)

1.8. What	
  size	
  is	
  your	
  parcel?	
  (Circle	
  one	
  number) LOTSIZE	
  (n =	
  136)

1 Around	
  1⁄4	
  acre	
  or	
  less	
  (1⁄4	
  acre =	
  10,890	
  square	
  feet)	
  (6.6%)

2 1⁄4	
  acre	
  to	
  2	
  acres	
  (31.6%)

3 Larger	
  than	
  2	
  acres	
   (61.8%)

How	
  many	
  acres	
  is	
  your	
  lot?	
  (Fill	
  in	
  the	
  blank)

(n =	
  80)	
  Mean =	
  20.94	
  acres __ACRES____ Number	
  of	
  acres
25

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

1.9. Do	
  you	
  expect	
  to	
  move	
  away	
  and/or	
  sell	
  your	
  current	
  residence	
  in	
  the	
  next	
  five	
  years? (Circle	
  one	
  

number)

MOVE1	
  (n =	
  133)

1 No	
  →	
  Skip	
  to	
  Section	
  2	
  (86.5%)

2 Yes,	
  move	
  and	
  sell	
  current	
  residence	
  (11.3%)

3 Yes,	
  move	
  but	
  keep	
  current	
  residence	
  (2.3%)

1.10.	
  How	
  important	
  were	
  each	
  of	
  the	
  following	
  reasons	
  in	
  your	
  decision	
  to	
  move	
  away	
  from	
  your	
  

current	
  residence	
  in	
  the	
  next	
  five	
  years?	
  (Circle	
  one	
  number	
  for	
  each	
  item)

Not

Important

Very	
  

Important

Concern	
  about	
  wildfire	
   1 2 3 4 5

MOVEWHY1	
  (n =	
  21)	
  Mean =	
  2.05 57.1% 9.5% 14.3% 9.5% 9.5%

Traumatic	
  experience	
  at	
  the	
  

current	
  location	
  

1 2 3 4 5

MOVEWHY2	
  (n =	
  20)	
  Mean =	
  1.15 95.0% 0% 0% 5.0% 0.0%

Change	
  in	
  aesthetic	
  features	
  of	
  the	
  

landscape	
  (e.g.	
  burned	
  trees)	
   1 2 3 4 5

MOVEWHY3	
  (n =	
  20)	
  Mean =	
  1.20 95.0% 0% 0% 0% 5.0%

Loss	
  or	
  damage	
  to	
  house	
   1 2 3 4 5

MOVEWHY4	
  (n =	
  20)	
  Mean =	
  1.15 95.0% 0% 0% 5.0% 0%

Long	
  distance	
  to	
  commute	
  to	
  work	
  

place	
  

1 2 3 4 5

MOVEWHY5	
  (n =	
  19)	
  Mean =	
  1.47 78.9% 5.3% 10.5% 0% 5.3%

Logistical	
  challenges	
  of	
  having	
  

school-­‐aged	
  children	
  

1 2 3 4 5

MOVEWHY6	
  (n =	
  20)	
  Mean =	
  1.20 95.0% 0% 0% 0% 5.0%

Other	
  (please	
  specify):	
   1 2 3 4 5

MOVEWHY7	
  (n =	
  14)	
  Mean =	
  3.86 14.3% 0% 14.3% 28.6% 42.9%
26

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

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

property? (Circle	
  one	
  number) FIRE	
  (n =	
  138)

1 There	
  has	
  been	
  a	
  wildfire	
  on	
  your	
  property	
  (2.2%)

2 Less	
  than	
  10	
  miles	
  (74.6%)

3 More	
  than	
  10	
  miles	
  away	
  (21.7%)

4 Not	
  sure	
  (1.4%)

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

number)

DAMAGE	
  (n =	
  138)

1 No	
  (95.7%)

2 Yes,	
  my	
  current	
  residence	
  suffered	
  fire	
  and	
  smoke	
  damage	
  (0%)

3 Yes,	
  my	
  current	
  residence	
  suffered	
  only	
  smoke	
  damage	
  (4.3%)

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

or	
  received	
  a	
  reverse	
  911	
  call	
  to	
  prepare	
  to	
  evacuate? (Circle	
  one	
  number) EVACUATE	
  (n =	
  137)

1 No	
  (56.2%)

2 Yes,	
  evacuated	
  (16.8%)

3	
   Yes,	
  prepared	
  to	
  evacuate	
  (27.0%)

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

experienced	
  a	
  wildfire,	
  please	
  answer	
  the	
  following	
  questions.
27

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

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

number) PREVIOUS	
  (n =	
  138)

1 No	
  (87.0%)

2 Yes	
  (13.0%)

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

(Circle	
  all	
  that	
  apply) (n =	
  138)

1 No,	
  you	
  don’t	
  know	
  anyone	
  who	
  was	
  ever	
  evacuated KNOW1	
  (29.0%)

2 Yes,	
  you	
  know	
  someone	
  who	
  was	
  evacuated	
  in	
  the	
  last	
  5	
  years	
  KNOW2	
  (58.4%)

3 Yes,	
  you	
  know	
  someone	
  who	
  was	
  evacuated	
  more	
  than	
  5	
  years	
  ago	
  KNOW3	
  (16.1%)

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

(Circle	
  all	
  that	
  apply)	
  (n =	
  138)

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

(68.6%)

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

(24.1%)

3 Yes,	
  you	
  know	
  someone	
  whose	
  residence	
  has	
  been	
  damaged	
  or	
  lost	
  more	
  than	
  5	
  years	
  ago

LOST3	
  (9.4%)

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

property?	
  (Circle	
  one	
  number) RISKAWAR	
  (n =	
  138)

1 Not	
  aware	
  (13.0%)

2 Somewhat	
  aware	
  (43.5%)
28

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

8

3 Very aware (40.6%)

4 Don’t remember (2.9%)

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

to wildfire? (Circle one number) PROPRISK (n = 138)

1 No (46.0%)

2 Yes (54.0%)→ (please specify): ______PROPWHAT______________________

2.9. 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 Contributes a lot

Vegetation on your property 1 2 3 4 5

CONTRIB1 (n = 135) Mean = 3.51 8.9% 18.5% 19.3% 19.3% 34.1%

Physical characteristics of your property other than 

vegetation (e.g., steep inclines) 1 2 3 4 5

In the following questions, vegetation means any kind of plant, such as grasses, shrubs, or trees.
29

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

CONTRIB2	
  (n =	
  131)	
  Mean =	
  3.02 22.9% 14.5% 22.1% 18.3% 22.1%

Physical	
  characteristics	
  of	
  your	
  house	
  or	
  other	
  

buildings	
  (e.g.,	
  roofing	
  or	
  siding)	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONTRIB3	
  (n =	
  134)	
  Mean =	
  2.82 17.2% 26.1% 28.4% 14.2% 14.2%

Vegetation	
  on	
  your	
  neighbors’	
  properties	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONTRIB4	
  (n =	
  134)	
  Mean =	
  3.47 10.4% 15.7% 21.6% 20.9% 31.3%

Vegetation	
  on	
  nearby	
  National	
  Forest	
  or	
  National	
  

Park	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONTRIB5	
  (n =	
  131)	
  Mean =	
  2.88 36.6% 8.4% 12.2% 16.0% 26.7%

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

Space	
  or	
  greenbelt)	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONTRIB6	
  (n =	
  128)	
  Mean =	
  2.80 35.2% 11.7% 17.2% 9.4% 26.6%

Human	
  activity	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONTRIB7	
  (n =	
  131)	
  Mean =	
  3.84 6.9% 12.2% 14.5% 22.9% 43.5%

Weather-­‐related	
  natural	
  wildfire	
  starts	
  (e.g.,

lightning)	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONTRIB8	
  (n =	
  129)	
  Mean =	
  3.90 2.3% 13.2% 19.4% 22.5% 42.6%

Availability	
  of	
  roads	
  to	
  exit	
  community	
  and	
  

emergency	
  vehicles	
  to	
  enter	
  community	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONTRIB9	
  (n =	
  133)	
  Mean =	
  2.88 30.8% 15.0% 14.3% 15.0% 24.8%

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

number	
  for	
  each	
  item)

Not	
  at	
  all	
  

concerned

Extremely	
  

concerned

Your	
  house	
  or	
  other	
  buildings	
  on

your	
  property	
  

1 2 3 4 5

CONCERN1	
  (n =	
  136)	
  Mean =	
  3.20 7.4% 21.5% 32.6% 20.0% 18.5%

Your	
  health	
  or	
  your	
  family’s	
  health	
   1 2 3 4 5
30

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

CONCERN2	
  (n =	
  136)	
  mean =	
  2.58 22.8% 27.9% 27.2% 12.5% 9.6%

Your	
  ability	
  to	
  earn	
  income	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONCERN3	
  (n =	
  134)	
  Mean =	
  1.83 56.7% 20.1% 11.2% 7.5% 4.5%

Your	
  pets	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONCERN4	
  (n =	
  135)	
  Mean =	
  2.59 37.8% 14.8% 14.1% 17.8% 15.6%

Your	
  property/landscape	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONCERN5	
  (n =	
  135)	
  Mean =	
  3.06 14.8% 17.8% 29.6% 22.2% 15.6%

Local	
  water	
  sources	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONCERN6	
  (n =	
  136)	
  Mean =	
  2.42 33.3% 21.5% 23.7% 11.9% 9.6%

Public	
  lands	
  near	
  your	
  home	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONCERN7	
  (n =	
  135)	
  Mean =	
  2.87 22.2% 17.0% 26.7% 19.3% 14.8%

3.1. Have	
  any	
  of	
  the	
  following	
  actions	
  been	
  completed	
  on	
  your	
  property?	
  (Check	
  one	
  box	
  for	
  each	
  

action) (n =	
  138)

Completed	
  by	
  

previous	
  owner

Completed/	
  

Maintained	
  

regularly	
  by	
  you

Plan	
  to	
  

Complete Not	
  applicable

Within	
  a	
  30	
  foot	
  perimeter	
  from	
  your	
  house	
  or	
  other	
  buildings:

Pruned	
  limbs	
  so	
  lowest	
  is	
  6-­‐10	
  feet	
  from	
  the	
  ground

LIMB30C

2.9%

LIMB30M

58.7%

LIMBCP

15.9%

LIMB30NA

15.2%

Removed	
  dead or	
  overhanging	
  branches

BR30C

2.2%

BR30M

68.8%

BR30P

12.3%

BR30NA

15.9%

Thinned	
  trees	
  and	
  shrubs

THIN30C

2.2%

THIN30M

66.7%

THIN30P

7.2%

THIN30NA

17.4%

Section	
  3:	
  In	
  this	
  section,	
  we	
  are	
  interested	
  in	
  the	
  kinds	
  of	
  changes	
  you	
  have	
  made	
  to	
  your	
  property	
  or	
  to	
  

your house and	
  other	
  buildings	
  on	
  your	
  property.	
  We	
  are	
  also	
  interested	
  in	
  any	
  changes	
  you	
  plan	
  to	
  

complete	
  in	
  the	
  future.
31

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

Cleared	
  leaves	
  and	
  pine	
  needles	
  from	
  the	
  roof	
  and/or	
  

yard	
  

LEAF30C

.7%

LEAF30M

65.9%

LEAF30P

8.7%

LEAF30NA

19.6%

Mowed	
  long	
  grasses	
  

MOW30C

.7%

MOW30M

79.0%

MOWCOP

5.6%

MOW30NA

7.5%

In	
  area	
  30-­‐100	
  feet	
  from	
  your	
  house	
  or	
  other	
  buildings:

Pruned	
  limbs	
  so	
  lowest	
  is	
  6-­‐10	
  feet	
  from	
  the	
  ground

LIMBGT30C

1.4%

LIMBGT30M

48.6%

LIMBGT30P

13.8%

LIMBGT30NA

23.9%

Removed	
  dead	
  or	
  overhanging	
  branches

BRGT30C

2.2%

BRGT30M

51.4%

BRGT30P

14.5%

BRGT30NA

24.6%

Thinned	
  trees	
  and	
  shrubs	
  

THINGT30C

.7%

THINGT30M

53.6%

THINGT30P

10.1%

THINGT30NA

26.1%

Cleared	
  leaves	
  and	
  pine	
  needles	
  from	
  the	
  yard	
  

LEAFGT30C

0%

LEAFGT30M

48.6%

LEAFGT30P

11.6%

LEAFGT30NA

29.0%

Mowed	
  long	
  grasses	
  

MOWFT30C

0.7%

MOWGT30M

60.9%

MOWGT30P

10.1%

MOWGT30NA

17.4%

To	
  your	
  house:

Installed	
  a	
  fire	
  resistant	
  roof

ROOFC

6.5%

ROOFM

58.0%

ROOFP

10.1%

ROOFNA

15.9%

Installed	
  fire	
  resistant	
  siding	
  on	
  house	
  or	
  other	
  

buildings

SIDEC

2.9%

SIDEM

19.6%

SIDEP

13.0%

SIDENA

42.8%

Installed	
  fire	
  resistant	
  decking	
  

DECKC

0%

DECKM

15.2%

DECKP

18.8%

DECKNA

42.8%

Replaced	
  exterior	
  wood	
  stairs	
  and	
  balconies	
   STAIRC

.7%

STAIRM

10.1%

STAIRP

16.7%

STAIRNA

46.4%

Installed	
  screening	
  over	
  roof	
  vents

SCREENC

5.8%

SCREENM

38.6%

SCREENP

12.3%

SCREENNA

27.5%

Installed	
  fire	
  resistant	
  landscaping	
  (ex.	
  rock)	
  within	
  3	
  

to	
  5	
  feet	
  of	
  the house	
  or	
  other	
  buildings

ROCKC

2.2%

ROCKM

39.1%

ROCKP

18.8%

ROCKNA

23.9%

Installed	
  house	
  number	
  in	
  clearly	
  visible	
  place

NUMBERC

7.2%

NUMBERM

76.1%

NUMBERP

8.7%

NUMBERNA

5.1%

3.2. Assume	
  there	
  are	
  grants	
  available	
  to	
  encourage	
  homeowners	
  to	
  complete	
  wildfire	
  risk	
  reduction	
  

actions. What	
  is	
  the	
  smallest	
  amount	
  of	
  money	
  you	
  would	
  accept	
  to	
  complete	
  any	
  actions	
  listed	
  below	
  

that	
  have	
  not	
  already	
  been	
  completed	
  on	
  your	
  property? (Check	
  one	
  box	
  for	
  each	
  action	
  that	
  has	
  not	
  

been	
  completed)

Less	
  than	
  

$500

$500-­‐

$999

$1000-­‐

$1499

$1500-­‐

$1999

$2000-­‐

$2499

$2500-­‐

$2999

More	
  

than	
  

$3000

Would	
  

NOT	
  

Within	
  a	
  30	
  foot	
  perimeter	
  from	
  your	
  house	
  or	
  other	
  buildings:
32

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

Prune	
  limbs	
  so	
  lowest	
  is	
  6-­‐10	
  feet	
  from	
  

the	
  ground	
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

LIMB30PAY	
  (n =	
  88)	
  Mean =	
  1.41 48.9% 18.2% 5.7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 27.3%

Remove	
  dead	
  or	
  overhanging	
  

branches	
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

BR30PAY	
  (n =	
  89)	
  Mean =	
  1.44 55.1% 15.7% 7.9% 1.1% 0	
  % 0% 0% 20.2%

Thin	
  trees	
  and	
  shrubs	
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

THIN30PAY	
  (n =	
  90)	
  Mean =	
  1.54 51.1% 12.2% 7.8% 4.4% 0% 0% 0% 24.4%

In	
  area	
  30-­‐100	
  feet	
  from	
  your	
  house	
  or	
  other	
  buildings:

Prune	
  limbs	
  so	
  lowest	
  is	
  6-­‐10	
  feet	
  from	
  

the	
  ground	
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

LIMB100PAY	
  (n =	
  92)	
  Mean =	
  1.86 40.2% 21.7% 6.5% 5.4% 2.2% 0% 1.1% 22.8%

Remove	
  dead	
  or	
  overhanging	
  

branches	
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

BR100PAY	
  (n =	
  91)	
  Mean =	
  1.86 40.7% 23.1% 7.7% 3.3% 3.3% 0% 1.1% 20.9%

Thin	
  trees	
  and	
  shrubs	
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

THIN100PAY	
  (n =	
  91)	
  Mean =	
  1.93 41.8% 16.5% 7.7% 5.5% 2.2% 0% 2.2% 24.2%

To	
  your	
  house:

Install	
  a	
  fire	
  resistant	
  roof	
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ROOFPAY	
  (n =	
  86)	
  Mean =	
  6.00 3.5% 2.3% 3.5% 2.3% 8.1% 7.0% 50.0% 23.3%

Install	
  fire	
  resistant	
  siding	
  on	
  house	
  

or	
  other	
  buildings	
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

SIDEPAY	
  (n =	
  110)	
  Mean =	
  6.6.07 .9% 4.5% 1.8% 4.5% 3.6% 1.8% 45.5% 37.3%

Install	
  fire	
  resistant	
  decking	
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

DECKPAY	
  (n =	
  112)	
  Mean =	
  5.57 2.7% 5.4% 5.4% 8.0% 5.4% 5.4% 41.1% 26.8%

Replace	
  exterior	
  wood	
  stairs	
  and	
  

balconies	
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

STAIRPAY	
  (n =	
  109)	
  Mean =	
  4.83 7.3% 6.4% 7.3% 8.3% 8.3% 4.6% 27.5% 30.3%

Install	
  fire	
  resistant	
  landscaping	
  (ex.	
  

rock)	
  within	
  a	
  3-­‐5	
  ft	
  perimeter	
  of	
  

house	
  or	
  other	
  structures	
  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ROCKPAY	
  (n =	
  104)	
  Mean =	
  3.55

15.4% 12.5% 14.4% 8.7% 4.8% 3.8% 13.5% 26.9%
33

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

3.3.	
  Do	
  you	
  currently	
  have	
  an	
  evacuation	
  plan	
  in	
  the	
  event	
  of	
  a	
  wildfire	
  threatening	
  your	
  home	
  or	
  

property?	
  (Circle	
  one	
  number) EVACPLAN	
  (n =	
  136)

1 No	
  (18.4%)

2 Yes	
  (81.6%)

3.4. 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) EMERPLAN	
  (n =	
  135)

1 No	
  (47.4%)

2 Yes	
  (52.6%)	
   Please	
  explain:	
  ________PLANWHAT____________________________

3.5. 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	
  item)

Not	
  a	
  

Consideration

Strong

Consideration

Financial	
  expense/	
  Cost	
  of	
  action	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONSID1	
  (n =	
  135)	
  Mean =	
  3.43 12.6% 14.8% 22.2% 17.8% 32.6%

Time	
  it	
  takes	
  to	
  implement	
  actions	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONSID2	
  (n =	
  134)	
  Mean =	
  3.02 21.6% 12.7% 28.4% 16.4% 20.9%

Physical	
  difficulty	
  of	
  doing	
  the	
  work	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONSID3	
  (n =	
  133)	
  Mean =	
  3.23 21.1% 9.8% 24.8% 14.3% 30.1%

Lack	
  of	
  specific	
  information	
  about how

to	
  reduce	
  risk	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONSID4	
  (n =	
  135)	
  Mean =	
  2.12 45.2% 20.7% 18.5% 8.1% 7.4%

The	
  likelihood	
  of	
  a	
  wildfire	
  being	
  on	
  your	
  

property	
  

1 2 3 4 5

CONSID5	
  (n =	
  134)	
  Mean =	
  3.46 7.5% 15.7% 25.4% 26.1% 25.4%
34

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

3.6. From	
  which	
  of	
  the	
  following	
  sources	
  have	
  you	
  received	
  information	
  from	
  about	
  reducing	
  the	
  risk	
  of	
  

wildfire? (Circle	
  all	
  that	
  apply) (n =	
  138)

1 Local	
  Fire	
  Department	
  SOURCE1	
  59.4%

2 Neighborhood	
  group	
  (homeowners	
  group,	
  local	
  board,	
  etc.)	
  SOURCE2	
  37.7%

3 Neighbors,	
  friends,	
  or	
  family	
  members	
  SOURCE3	
  32.6%

4 Media	
  (newspaper,	
  TV,	
  radio,	
  internet)	
  SOURCE4	
  52.2%

5 County	
  wildfire	
  specialist	
  SOURCE5	
  19.6%

6 Colorado	
  State	
  Forest	
  Service	
  SOURCE6	
  26.8%

7 US	
  Forest	
  Service	
  SOURCE7	
  21.0%

8 National	
  Park	
  Service	
  SOURCE8	
  5.8%

9 Other	
  Please	
  describe:	
  _________SOURCE9	
  8.7%___________________

10 None	
  of	
  the	
  above,	
  you	
  have	
  not	
  received	
  any	
  information	
  about	
  wildfire	
  risk. SOURCE10	
  10.1%

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

the	
  following	
  sources? (Circle	
  one	
  number	
  for	
  each	
  source)

No

Confidence

A	
  lot	
  of	
  

Confidence

Local	
  fire	
  department	
   1 2 3 4 5

SCON1(n =	
  123)	
  Mean	
  4.32 2.5% 2.5% 15.6% 20.5% 59.0%

Neighborhood	
  group	
  (homeowners	
  group,	
  local	
  

board,	
  etc.)	
  

1 2 3 4 5

SCON2	
  (n =	
  112)	
  Mean =	
  3.22 13.5% 12.6% 31.5% 20.7% 21.6%

Neighbors,	
  friends,	
  or	
  family	
  members	
   1 2 3 4 5

SCON3	
  (n =	
  114)	
  Mean =	
  3.26 7.1% 16.8% 36.3% 23.9% 15.9%

Media	
  (newspaper,	
  TV,	
  radio,	
  internet)	
   1 2 3 4 5

Efficacy	
  of	
  mitigation	
  actions 2 3 4 5

CONSID6	
  (n =	
  129)	
  Mean =	
  3.25 15.5% 8.5% 31.0% 25.6% 19.4%
35

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

SCON4	
  (n =	
  121)	
  Mean =	
  3.09 11.7% 20.0% 31.7% 22.5% 14.2%

County	
  wildfire	
  specialist	
   1 2 3 4 5

SCON5	
  (n =	
  115)	
  Mean =	
  4.23 5.3% 1.8% 14.0% 23.7% 55.3%

Colorado	
  State	
  Forest	
  Service	
   1 2 3 4 5

SCON6	
  (n =	
  114)	
  Mean =	
  4.20 7.1% 1.8% 9.7% 27.4% 54.0%

U.S.	
  Forest	
  Service	
   1 2 3 4 5

SCON7	
  (n =	
  111)	
  Mean =	
  4.05 9.1% 3.6% 13.6% 20.9% 52.7%

National	
  Park	
  Service	
   1 2 3 4 5

SCON8	
  (n =	
  1011)	
  Mean =	
  3.89 9.9% 5.9% 16.8% 19.8% 47.5%

Other: ___

(SCONWHO)_________ 1 2 3 4 5

SCON	
  9	
  (n =	
  11)	
  Mean =	
  2.91 9.1% 18.2% 45.5% 27.3% 0%

4.1. 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.	
   1 2 3 4 5 6

LACT1	
  (n =	
  131)	
  Mean =	
  2.62 28.2% 24.4% 21.4% 9.2% 16.8% 1.4%

The	
  fire	
  department	
  would	
  save	
  your	
  

home.	
   1 2 3 4 5 6

LACT2	
  (n =	
  132)	
  Mean =	
  3.69 9.1% 4.5% 28.0% 25.0% 33.3% 1.4%

There	
  would	
  be	
  some	
  smoke	
  damage	
  to	
  

your	
  home.	
   1 2 3 4 5 6

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.

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.
36

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

LACT3	
  (n =	
  133)	
  Mean =	
  3.99 3.0% 6.0% 21.1% 28.6% 41.4% .7%

There	
  would	
  be	
  some	
  physical	
  damage	
  to	
  

your	
  home.	
   1 2 3 4 5 6

LACT4	
  (n =	
  131)	
  Mean =	
  3.59 6.1% 13.0% 24.4% 29.0% 27.5% .7%

Your	
  home	
  would	
  be	
  destroyed.	
   1 2 3 4 5 6

LACT5	
  (n =	
  133)	
  Mean =	
  2.80 23.3% 21.8% 22.6% 16.5% 15.8% .7%

You	
  would	
  suffer	
  financial	
  losses	
  due	
  to	
  

the	
  loss	
  of	
  business/income	
  on	
  your	
  

property.	
  

1 2 3 4 5 6

LACT6	
  (n =	
  119)	
  Mean =	
  2.47 51.3% 7.6% 10.1% 5.0% 26.1% 9.4%

Your	
  trees	
  and	
  landscape	
  would	
  burn.	
   1 2 3 4 5 6

LACT7	
  (n =	
  127)	
  Mean =	
  4.13 .8% 7.9% 17.3% 26.0% 48.0% 4.3%

Your	
  pets	
  would	
  be	
  harmed	
  (include	
  non-­‐

income	
  generating	
  livestock).	
   1 2 3 4 5 6

LACT8	
  (n =	
  113)	
  Mean =	
  2.35 38.9% 19.5% 19.5% 12.4% 9.7% 15.2%

Your	
  neighbors’	
  homes	
  would	
  be	
  

damaged	
  or	
  destroyed.	
   1 2 3 4 5 6

LACT9	
  (n =	
  131)	
  Mean =	
  3.46 6.1% 19.1% 24.4% 23.7% 26.7% 2.2%

Your	
  community	
  water	
  supply	
  would	
  be	
  

threatened.	
   1 2 3 4 5 6

LACT10	
  (n =	
  119)	
  Mean =	
  2.18 47.9% 20.2% 12.6% 5.0% 14.3% 11.6%

The	
  fire	
  would	
  spread	
  to	
  nearby	
  public	
  

lands.	
   1 2 3 4 5 6

LACT11	
  (n =	
  123)	
  Mean =	
  3.46 20.3% 13.0% 9.8% 14.6% 42.3% 7.2%

4.2. 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
37

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

Naturally	
  occurring	
  wildfire	
  is	
  not	
  the	
  problem;	
  people	
  

who	
  choose	
  to	
  live	
  in	
  fire	
  prone	
  areas	
  are	
  the	
  problem. 1 2 3 4 5

STATE1(n =	
  135)	
  Mean =	
  2.90 8.1% 32.6% 31.9% 15.6% 11.9%

With	
  proper	
  technology,	
  we	
  can	
  control	
  most	
  wildfires	
  

after	
  they	
  have	
  started.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE2	
  (n =	
  134)	
  Mean =	
  3.33 2.2% 24.6% 20.9% 42.6% 9.7%

Wildfires	
  that	
  threaten	
  human	
  life	
  should	
  be	
  put	
  out.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE3	
  (n =	
  135)	
  Mean =	
  1.57 55.6% 34.8% 6.7% 3.0% 0%

Wildfires	
  that	
  threaten	
  property	
  should	
  be	
  put	
  out.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE4	
  (n =	
  133)	
  Mean =	
  1.96 35.3% 39.8% 18.8% 5.3% .8%

During	
  a	
  wildfire,	
  saving	
  homes	
  should	
  be	
  a	
  priority	
  

over	
  saving	
  forests.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE5	
  (n =	
  135)	
  Mean =	
  2.07 32.6% 39.3% 17.8% 8.9% 1.5%

Wildfires	
  are	
  a	
  natural	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  balance	
  of	
  a	
  healthy	
  

forest/ecosystem.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE6	
  (n =	
  135)	
  Mean =	
  1.79 45.2% 38.5% 10.4% 4.4% 1.5%

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

due	
  to	
  wildfire	
  because	
  the	
  risk	
  is	
  not	
  that	
  great.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE7	
  (n =	
  135)	
  Mean =	
  4.17 1.5% 6.7% 8.1% 40.7% 43.0%

You	
  do	
  not	
  have	
  the	
  time	
  to	
  implement	
  wildfire	
  risk	
  

reduction	
  actions.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE8	
  (n =	
  134)	
  Mean =	
  3.85 1.5% 6.7% 18.7% 51.5% 21.6%

You	
  do	
  not	
  have	
  the	
  money	
  for	
  wildfire	
  risk	
  reduction	
  

actions.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE9	
  (n =	
  135)	
  Mean =	
  3.11 6.6% 25.9% 28.9% 26.7% 11.9%

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

wildfire	
  because	
  you	
  have	
  insurance.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE10	
  (n =	
  135)	
  Mean =	
  4.25 .7% 3.0% 8.1% 46.7% 41.5%
38

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

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

them	
  to	
  reduce	
  fire	
  risk.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE11	
  (n =	
  133)	
  Mean =	
  4.00 2.3% 4.5% 15.0% 47.4% 30.8%

A	
  wildfire	
  is	
  unlikely	
  to	
  happen	
  within	
  the	
  time	
  period	
  

you	
  expect	
  to	
  live	
  here.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE12	
  (n =	
  134)	
  Mean =	
  3.58 5.2% 12.7% 23.1% 36.6% 22.4%

Managing	
  the	
  wildfire	
  danger	
  is	
  a	
  government	
  

responsibility,	
  not	
  yours.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE13	
  (n =	
  134)	
  Mean =	
  4.18 0% 1.5% 10.4% 56.7% 31.3%

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

effective.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE14	
  (n =	
  134)	
  Mean =	
  4.01 1.5% 3.7% 11.2% 59.0% 24.6%

Your	
  property	
  is	
  not	
  at	
  risk	
  of	
  wildfire.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE15	
  (n =	
  135)	
  Mean =	
  3.90 2.2% 8.9% 14.8% 45.2% 28.9%

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.	
  

1 2 3 4 5

STATE16	
  (n =	
  135)	
  Mean =	
  4.11 .7% 3.0% 14.1% 48.9% 29.9%

You	
  don’t	
  take	
  action	
  because	
  adjacent	
  properties	
  are	
  

not	
  treated	
  leaving	
  your	
  actions	
  ineffective.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE17	
  (n =	
  134)	
  Mean =	
  3.93 0% 9.7% 17.9% 42.5% 29.9%

5.1. Have	
  you	
  ever	
  talked	
  about	
  wildfire	
  issues	
  with	
  a	
  neighbor?	
  (Circle	
  one	
  number) TALKFIRE	
  (n =	
  138)

1 No	
  (27.1%)

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.
39

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

2 Yes	
  (72.9%)

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

one	
  number) NACTION	
  (n =	
  133)

1 No	
  18.8%	
   Skip	
  to	
  Question	
  5.5

2 Yes 60.9%	
   Please	
  describe:	
  _____ACTIONWHAT___________________________________

3 Don’t	
  know	
  20.3%  Skip	
  to	
  Question	
  5.5

5.3. 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) WHENACT	
  (n =	
  78)

1 You	
  have	
  not	
  taken	
  any	
  action	
  1.3%

2 They	
  took	
  action	
  before	
  you	
  did	
  10.3%

3 They	
  took	
  action	
  after	
  you	
  did	
  28.2%

4 They	
  plan	
  to	
  take	
  action	
  0%

5 We	
  took	
  action	
  around	
  the	
  same	
  time	
  47.4%

6 Don’t	
  know	
  12.8%

5.4. 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) WORKN	
  (n =	
  81)

1 No	
  45.7%

2 Yes,	
  on	
  your	
  property	
  11.1%

3 Yes,	
  on	
  your	
  neighbors’	
  properties	
  11.1%

4 Yes,	
  on	
  both	
  32.1%
40

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

5.5. 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)

SLACKER	
  (n =	
  133)

1 No	
  25.6%

2 Yes	
  56.4%

3 Don’t	
  know	
  18.0%

5.6. 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...	
  

1 2 3 4 5

VEG1	
  (n =	
  131)	
  Mean =	
  3.10 13.7% 16.8% 34.4% 16.0% 19.1%

Currently,	
  the	
  vegetation	
  on	
  your property	
  is...	
   1 2 3 4 5

VEG2	
  (n =	
  133)	
  Mean =	
  2.63 12.0% 30.8% 42.1% 12.0% 3.0%

When	
  you	
  first	
  moved	
  in,	
  the	
  vegetation	
  on	
  most	
  of	
  the	
  

properties	
  neighboring	
  yours was...	
  

1 2 3 4 5

VEG3	
  (n =	
  132)	
  Mean =	
  3.26 7.6% 15.2% 37.9% 22.7% 16.7%

Currently,	
  the	
  vegetation	
  on	
  most	
  of	
  the	
  properties	
  

neighboring	
  yours is... 1 2 3 4 5

VEG4	
  (n =	
  133)	
  Mean =	
  3.12 5.3% 19.5% 43.6% 21.1% 10.5%

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.
41

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

6.1. 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) SOCIAL4	
  (n =	
  138)

1 No	
  33.9%

2 Yes	
  66.1%

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

slash	
  collection	
  day)	
  in	
  your	
  community? (Circle	
  one	
  number) SOCIAL5	
  (n =	
  138)

1 No	
  59.0%

2 Yes	
  41.0%

6.3. 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.	
   1 2 3 4 5

DANGER1	
  (n =	
  130)	
  Mean =	
  3.47 9.2% 9.2% 31.5% 25.4% 24.6%

The	
  number	
  of	
  houses	
  being	
  built	
  in	
  your	
  community.	
   1 2 3 4 5

DANGER2	
  (n =	
  131)	
  Mean =	
  2.64 22.1% 19.8% 35.1% 17.6% 5.3%

Timber	
  cutting	
  practices.	
   1 2 3 4 5

DANGER3(n =	
  126)	
  Mean =	
  2.47 37.3% 14.3% 23.0% 15.1% 10.3%

Vandalism	
  and/or	
  arson.	
   1 2 3 4 5

DANGER4	
  (n =	
  128)	
  Mean =	
  2.55 27.3% 26.6% 20.3% 15.6% 10.2%

Recreational	
  use	
  on	
  public	
  lands.	
   1 2 3 4 5

DANGER5	
  (n =	
  125)	
  Mean =	
  3.08 17.6% 16.0% 24.8% 24.0% 17.6%

Natural	
  processes	
  (droughts,	
  changes	
  in	
  vegetation	
  

over	
  time,	
  lightning,	
  etc.).	
   1 2 3 4 5

DANGER6	
  (n =	
  131)	
  Mean =	
  4.05 3.1% 3.1% 17.6% 38.9% 37.4%
42

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

Larger	
  environmental	
  changes	
  such	
  as	
  global	
  

warming.	
   1 2 3 4 5

DANGER7	
  (n =	
  129)	
  Mean =	
  2.95 26.4% 9.3% 24.8% 22.5% 17.1%

Diseases	
  and	
  pests	
  (bark	
  beetle,	
  dwarf	
  mistletoe) 1 2 3 4 5

DANGER8	
  (n =	
  130)	
  Mean =	
  4.05 8.5% 4.6% 10.8% 25.4% 50.8%

Accidental	
  ignitions	
   1 2 3 4 5

DANGER10	
  (n =	
  131)	
  Mean =	
  3.76 5.3% 8.4% 22.9% 32.1% 31.3%

Other	
  (please	
  specify):	
  __

(DANGERWHY)___________ 1 2 3 4 5

DANGER9	
  (n =	
  15)	
  Mean =	
  3.47 20.0% 6.7% 13.3% 26.7% 33.3%

7.1. How	
  much	
  to	
  you	
  agree	
  or	
  disagree	
  with	
  the	
  following	
  statements?	
  (Circle	
  one	
  number	
  for	
  each)

Strongly	
  

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly	
  

Disagre

e

Climate	
  change	
  is	
  real	
   1 2 3 4 5

CLIMATE1	
  (n =	
  131)	
  Mean =	
  2.09 44.3% 22.9% 19.1% 6.9% 6.9%

Humans	
  are	
  largely	
  responsible	
  for	
  climate	
  change	
   1 2 3 4 5

CLIMATE2	
  (n =	
  132)	
  Mean =	
  2.62 25.0% 25.8% 23.5% 13.6% 12.1%

Climate	
  change	
  is	
  a	
  hoax	
   1 2 3 4 5

CLIMATE3	
  (n =	
  131)	
  Mean =	
  3.88 9.2% 4.6% 19.8% 22.1% 44.3%

I	
  am	
  skeptical	
  about	
  the	
  existence	
  of	
  climate	
  change	
   1 2 3 4 5

CLIMATE4	
  (n =	
  129)	
  mean =	
  3.68 10.9% 10.1% 20.9% 16.3% 41.9%

I	
  know	
  a	
  lot	
  about	
  climate	
  change	
   1 2 3 4 5

Section	
  7:	
  In	
  this	
  section,	
  we	
  are	
  interested	
  in	
  your	
  perspectives	
  on	
  climate	
  change.
43

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

CLIMATE5	
  (n =	
  131)	
  Mean	
  2.75 10.7% 26.0% 44.3% 16.0% 3.1%

Climate	
  change	
  has	
  increased	
  the	
  risk	
  of	
  wildfires	
  in	
  

Boulder	
  and	
  Larimer	
  counties	
   1 2 3 4 5

CLIMATE6	
  (n =	
  130)	
  Mean =	
  2.63 16.2% 33.8% 30.0% 10.8% 9.2%

Climate	
  change	
  has	
  not yet	
  increased	
  wildfire	
  risk	
  in	
  

Larimer	
  and	
  Boulder	
  counties	
  but	
  it	
  will	
  in	
  the	
  future	
   1 2 3 4 5

CLIMATE7	
  (n =	
  130)	
  Mean =	
  3.38 3.1% 15.4% 39.2% 25.4% 16.9%

Most	
  scientists	
  agree	
  that	
  climate	
  change	
  exists	
   1 2 3 4 5

CLIMATE8	
  (n =	
  130)	
  Mean =	
  2.36 23.8% 40.0% 19.2% 10.0% 6.9%

Most	
  scientists	
  agree	
  that	
  climate	
  change	
  is	
  caused	
  

by	
  humans	
   1 2 3 4 5

CLIMATE9	
  (n =	
  129)	
  Mean =	
  2.71 15.5% 31.0% 30.2% 13.2% 10.1%

Climate	
  change	
  and	
  wildfire	
  risk	
  are	
  not	
  related	
   1 2 3 4 5

CLIMATE10	
  (n =	
  128)	
  Mean =	
  3.91 3.9% 4.7% 21.9% 35.2% 34.4%

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

___AGE______	
  Years	
  old	
  (n =	
  126)	
  Mean =	
  61.08

8.2. Are	
  you?	
  (Circle	
  one	
  number) GENDER	
  (n =	
  130)

1	
   Male	
  56.9%

2 Female	
  43.1%

8.3. What	
  is	
  your	
  racial	
  or	
  ethnic	
  group?	
  (Circle	
  all	
  that	
  apply) (n =	
  138)

Section	
  8:	
  In	
  this	
  section,	
  we	
  ask	
  about	
  personal	
  and	
  household	
  characteristics. As	
  with	
  all	
  questions	
  in	
  this	
  

survey,	
  your	
  responses	
  are	
  completely	
  confidential.
44

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

1 White RACE1	
  92.0%

2 Black	
  or	
  African	
  American	
  RACE2	
  0%

3 Hispanic	
  RACE3	
  .7%

4 American	
  Indian	
  or	
  Alaskan	
  Native	
  RACE3	
  2.2%

5 Asian	
  RACE4	
  0%

6 Other	
  RACE5	
  .7%

8.4. What	
  best	
  describes	
  your	
  current	
  marital	
  status?	
  (Circle	
  one	
  number) MARRY	
  (n =	
  130)

1 Now	
  Married	
  75.4%

2 Widowed	
  8.5%

3 Divorced	
  10.0%

4 Never	
  Married	
  6.2%

8.5. What	
  is	
  the	
  highest	
  grade	
  or	
  year	
  of	
  school	
  you	
  completed?	
  (Circle	
  one	
  number) EDUC	
  (n =	
  130)

1 Eighth grade or less 0 %

2 Some high school .7%

3 High school graduate 3.1%

4 Some college or technical school 20.8%

5 Technical or trade school 4.6%

6 College graduate 25.4%

7 Some graduate work 16.2%

8 Advanced Degree (M.D., M.A., M.S., Ph.D., etc.) 30.0%

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

EMPLOY	
  (n =	
  134)

1 Employed	
  full	
  time 32.1%

2 Employed	
  part	
  time	
  4.5%
45

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

3 Unemployed	
  3.0%

4 Self-­‐employed	
  13.4%

5 Retired	
  47.0%

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

(n =	
  115)

1 Less	
  than	
  $25,000	
  10.4%

2 $25,000	
  -­‐ $34,999	
  7.0%

3 $35,000	
  – $49,999	
  13.0%

4 $50,000	
  -­‐ $74,999	
  29.6%

5 $75,000	
  -­‐ $99,999	
  16.5%

6 $100,000	
  -­‐ $124,999	
  7.8%

7 $125,000	
  -­‐ $200,000	
  8.7%

8 More	
  than	
  $200,000	
  7.0%

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:

Hannah	
  Brenkert-­‐Smith

National	
  Center	
  for	
  Atmospheric	
  Research

P.O.	
  Box	
  3000

Boulder,	
  CO	
  80307-­‐3000
46

Research Note RMRS-RN-58. 2013

Appendix B

Percent agreeing/strongly agreeing 2007 (p-value) 

with the following statements subset 2010 McNemar test

- - - -Percent - - - -

Wildfires that threaten human life 95 90 0.302

should be put out.

Wildfires are a natural part of the 88 84 0.238

balance of a healthy forest/ecosystem.

Wildfires that threaten property 81 75 0.265

should be put out.

During a wildfire, saving homes 64 72 0.024

should be a priority over saving forests.

Naturally occurring wildfire is not 35 41 0.377 

the problem; people who choose to 

live in fire prone areas are the problem.

You do not have the money for wildfire 19 33 0.004 

risk reduction actions.

With proper technology, we can control 34 27 0.164

most wildfires after they have started.

A wildfire is unlikely to happen within 15 18 0.690 

the time period you expect to live here.

Your property is not at risk of wildfire. 12 11 0.774

You don’t take action because adjacent 4 10 0.057 

properties are not treated leaving your 

actions ineffective.

You do not need to action to reduce 9 8 1.000

the risk of loss due to wildfire because 

the risk is not that great.

You do not have the time to implement 5 8 0.454

wildfire risk reduction actions.

You live here for the trees and will not 6 7 1.000

remove any of them to reduce fire risk.

Actions to reduce the risk of loss due to 2 5 0.180

wildfire are not effective.

You do not need to act to reduce the risk 5 4 1.000

of loss due to wildfire because you have 

insurance.

You don’t take action to reduce the risk 3 4 1.000

of loss due to wildfire because if a wildfire 

reaches your property firefighters will protect 

your home.

Managing the wildfire danger is a government 2 2 1.000

responsibility, not yours.
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. For more information, please visit the RMRS web site at: 

www.fs.fed.us/rmrs.

Station Headquarters

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 W Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

(970) 498-1100

Research Locations

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

customers, employees, and applicants for employment 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.) For 

more information, please visit the USDA web site at: www.usda.gov and click on 

the Non-Discrimination Statement link at the bottom of that page.

Reno, Nevada

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Rapid City, South Dakota

Logan, Utah

Ogden, Utah

Provo, Utah

Flagstaff, Arizona

Fort Collins, Colorado

Boise, Idaho

Moscow, Idaho

Bozeman, Montana

Missoula, Montana

To learn more about RMRS publications or search our online titles:

www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications

www.treesearch.fs.fed.us