1

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Research Note

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Research Note RMRS-RN-57

October 2013

Citation:

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

2013. Understanding change: Wildfire in Boulder County, 

Colorado. Res. Note RMRS-RN-57. 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.

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. 

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

as the county with the highest wildfire risk in the state and the 10th highest county 

in the United States with respect to existing wildfire risk 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 devastating wildfires. The Fourmile Canyon Fire in 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. For more than 10 years, counties such as Boulder 

Understanding Change: Wildfire 

in Boulder County, Colorado

Hannah Brenkert-Smith, Patricia A. Champ, and Amy L. Telligman
2

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

County have implemented wildfire education programs to encourage homeowners 

to mitigate the risk of losing their homes during a wildfire event. In 2007, WUI residents in Boulder 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 in experience with wildfire, perceptions of risk, wildfire 

risk information sources, and mitigation efforts. In this report we look specifically at 

the panel data set created by pairing respondents to the two surveys and compare the 

2007 and 2010 survey results. 

Key Findings

Overall, we see relatively stable attitudes about wildfire; however, there are some notable changes between 2007 and 2010 related to wildfire experience, concern about 

wildfire, perceived factors contributing to wildfire risk, and likely outcomes if a fire 

were to occur. 

First, we see significant increases in the proportion of participants reporting fire-related experiences themselves and knowing others who have had fire-related experiences. 

This is not unexpected, as the 2010 survey was conducted in the months following 

the Fourmile Canyon Fire. Importantly, however, we see significant increases in concern about participants’ own homes, properties, pets, and health, as well as increased 

concern about wildfire affecting public lands. Consistent with these findings, we 

see significant increases in the proportion of respondents who identify both human 

activity and property characteristics (vegetation on own property, physical characteristics of own property other than vegetation (slope), and structural characteristics) 

as major contributors to the chances of a wildfire damaging respondents’ properties 

within the next five years. The increased focus on property-related vegetation and 

structural characteristics is notable because these are characteristics that homeowners 

can proactively alter to reduce fire risk. Further, we see a significant increase in those 

identifying roads for access/egress as a major concern, likely because of the role roads 

can play in fire suppression efforts and in providing evacuation options. 

Similarly, participants also indicate that they believed it was more likely that they 

would experience fire-related losses in 2010 compared to 2007. The data indicate 

significant increases in expectations that wildfire would result in losses of trees/landscape, physical or smoke damage to their home, or the destruction of their home. 

Compared to 2007, in 2010 participants expressed higher expectations of financial 

losses or that pets, including non-income generating livestock, may be harmed. 

In terms of responding to wildfire, we see that reports of completed mitigation actions increase in 2010 relative to 2007 and overall the mitigation levels increase 

significantly with those indicating a high level of mitigation (10 or more actions) 

increasing 11%. In particular, we see significant increases in fuel reduction within 

the 30-foot perimeter of the home by way of thinning trees and cutting overhanging 

branches in that area; as well as fuel reduction in the area 30-100 feet from the home 

by way of cutting overhanging branches and limbing trees so that the lowest is 6-10 

feet from the ground in this area. We also see a significant increase in the less laborintensive action of clearing pine needles and leaves from the ground and off the roof. 
3

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

Methods

The Surveys

In 2007, a survey sponsored by Boulder 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 burned in Boulder County and the Reservoir Road Fire burned in adjacent Larimer County, a survey was administered to households that had previously 

participated in the wildfire study in 2007. 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 (two sections), 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 Boulder County Assessor’s Office, GIS software, 

and Boulder 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 = 8,300). 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 316 

online responses and 105 mail responses for an overall response rate of 36% and a 

total of 421 observations (see http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_rn047.pdf for full 

details).

The initial sample for the 2010 survey consisted of the 421 Boulder County 

households that had responded to the 2007 survey. In the fall of 2010, potential participants were mailed a package with a letter of invitation to participate in the survey, 

the survey, 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.

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.
4

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

Of the 421 initial letters that were mailed, 26 were not deliverable1. Two hundred 

fifty-nine (38 online and 221 paper) were received for an overall response rate of 

65.56%.2

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

for 218 respondents. The responses to all of the survey questions were statistically 

similar between web and paper surveys. 

The results presented here are based on the 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 responded to both surveys, any household survey participant for which a different sex was reported in 2010 compared to 

2007 was excluded from the analyses here. Twenty-three of the 218 surveys demonstrated this inconsistency and were excluded, resulting in a total of n = 195. 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 59 years old. Slightly more males responded (53%) than females 

(47%) and almost all of the survey respondents identified “White” as their racial 

group (95%). Sixty-eight percent of the respondents are married. The respondents 

are well educated with 44% having advanced degrees. 

1 From public records regarding property losses from the Fourmile Canyon Fire, we know 

that nine of the 2007 respondents lost their homes and two others suffered significant structural damage and expect that these surveys were undeliverable. Of the 26 items returned, 18 

were marked “vacant,” one was marked “undeliverable,” and one was marked “seasonal” by the 

mail carrier. The remaining six did not have any notation.

2 259 responses / 395 delivered surveys [421 sent - 26 undeliverable] = 65.56%

3 For the purposes of this report we use: p ≤ .10*, p ≤ .05**, p ≤ .01 ***.
5

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

Place of Residence

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

(16%) expect to move within the next five years. Among those reporting intent to 

move, approximately 36% indicate that wildfire was an important or very important 

factor driving that decision while 29% report it is not important at all. All of the 

respondents own their home and almost all of the survey respondents say they have 

homeowner’s insurance (99%). Most of the respondents report having household 

pets (66%). Approximately half (51%) of respondents’ parcels are one quarter to 

two acres and 40% are larger than two acres with an average of 11 acres. Only 9% 

of respondents are on parcels less than a quarter acre. On average, respondents have 

lived in their homes for 19 years.

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

a slight decrease from the frequency of respondents (20%) indicating that they expect to move within the next five years; however, the difference is not statistically 

significant. 

Neighbors

In the survey section that asked about social interactions, respondents were asked 

about the density of vegetation on their property and neighboring properties two 

different points in time: when they moved in and currently (Table 1). In 2010, 

approximately 44% of the survey respondents indicated the vegetation on their property was dense when they moved in, compared to 8% who indicate that the current 

vegetation is dense. Likewise in 2010, 55% of the respondents indicated that the vegetation on neighboring properties was dense when they moved in compared to 34% 

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 50 44 0.152

vegetation on your property was...

Currently the vegetation on your property is... 14 8 0.064

When you first moved in, the vegetation on 52 55 0.488

most of the properties neighboring yours was...

Currently, the vegetation on most of the properties 38 34 0.289 

neighboring yours is...

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

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

Reporting on current vegetation denisty on their own properties changed in a 

statistically significant manner between the two reporting periods with only 8% of 

2010 respondents indicating that they currently have dense vegetation on their properties. In other words, respondents describe their own vegetation as being sparser 

in the 2010 survey than they did in 2007. Reporting on vegetation on neighbors’ 

properties at time of moving in and currently did not change significantly between 

the two reporting periods. We anticipate that in most cases this is a result of property 

owners taking action to reduce risk rather than as a result of fire on their properties; 

however, we know that 70 of respondents in the panel data set described here were 

within the Fourmile Canyon Fire perimeter so it is possible that a portion of those 

reporting less dense vegetation experienced a fire on their property. 

While not significant, we still see that respondents report a similar trajectory for their 

own and neighbors’ vegetation: toward sparser vegetation. 

Experience with Wildfire

Considering the fact that the Fourmile Canyon Fire occurred in 2010, it is not surprising that we see some significant change in wildfire-related experiences between 

the 2007 and 2010 surveys. While relatively few respondents report experiencing 

wildfire on their properties (10% in 2010), 84% report wildfire within 10 miles of 

their properties, a 14% increase from 2007 (Table 2). Compared to 2007, there are 

also significant changes in evacuation experience. The frequency of respondents that 

were evacuated from their home due to a wildfire or threat of wildfire increases from 

23% in 2007 to 62% in 2010. 

Almost all of the 2010 respondents (93%) know someone who had been evacuated in 

the last five years and over half (61%) know someone whose residence was damaged 

or destroyed in the last five years, a 48% increase. 

Table 2—Wildfire-related experiences.

Percent reporting 

“Yes” p-value for

2007 2010 McNemar’s test

First-hand experience with wildfire 6 10 0.035

at current residence

Experience with wildfire less than 70 84 0.000 

10 miles from their property

Evacuated from current residence 23 62 0.000 

due to a wildfire or threat of wildfire

Know someone evacuated in last 5 years. 51 93 0.000

Know someone whose residence was 13 61 0.000 

damaged/destroyed in last 5 years.
7

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

Despite these significant increases in wildfire-related experiences, we see that almost 

half (49%) reported being somewhat aware of wildfire risk when they bought their 

current residence and another 37% reported being very aware (Table 3). We see 

interesting and significant changes in reported awareness of wildfire risk at time of 

purchase when comparing 2007 to 2010 results. We see that 37% of 2010 respondents report being very aware of wildfire risk at time of purchase compared to 46% in 

2007. We see no change in those reporting that they were not aware of wildfire risk. 

We speculate that the increase in those reporting being somewhat 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.

Attitudes Toward Wildfire

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

about what might be damaged by a wildfire (Table 4). The highest level of concern is 

expressed about wildfire damaging respondents’ homes and their property/landscape 

with 60% and 54%, respectively. Fifty percent of survey respondents also express 

concern that a wildfire would damage public land near their homes. There is also a 

fair bit of concern regarding the safety of pets in the event of a wildfire with over 40% 

reporting a high level of concern. Respondents are least concerned about a wildfire 

impacting their health (36% report a high level of concern), local water resources 

(28% report high level of concern), or their ability to earn an income (16% report 

high level of concern). 

Table 4—Wildfire concerns.

Percent reporting 4 or 5

(1 = not concerned at all; 

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

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

Your house or other buildings on your property 47 60 0.002

Your property/landscape 44 54 0.017

Public lands near your home 43 50 0.092

Your pets 27 42 0.000

Your health or your family’s health 28 36 0.032

Local water sources 22 28 0.193

Your ability to earn income 11 16 0.150

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 11 11

Somewhat aware 42 49

Very aware 46 37

McNemar-Bowker test = 11.366; p-value = 0.078
8

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

Compared to 2007, survey respondents express increased concern about all items and 

a statistically significant increase in all but two items. The most significant increases 

are in concern for pets, which increased by 15%, concern for homes increased by 

13%, and concern for property/landscape increased by 10%.

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

asked to rate how strongly they agree or disagree with each statement. Here we report the four statements with the most support along with the statements for which 

there was the lowest support (Table 5; see Appendix B for full set of 17 attitude 

statements). We find the most support for the three statements that advocate suppression when wildfires threaten human life, property, and homes alongside similarly 

high support for a fourth statement that appears to indicate a contrasting view. 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?

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. 91 92 0.664

Wildfires are a natural part of the balance of a healthy 89 90 0.856

forest/ecosystem. 

Wildfires that threaten property should be put out. 81 82 1.000

During a wildfire, saving homes should be a priority 79 81 0.743

over saving forests.

Least support

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

due to wildfire because you have insurance. 2 5 0.267

Actions to reduce the risk of loss due to wildfire 4 4 1.000

are not effective.

Your property is not at risk of wildfire. 3 5 0.549

You don’t take action to reduce the risk of loss 2 4 0.344

due to wildfire because if a wildfire reaches 

your property firefighters will protect your home.

Managing the wildfire danger is a government 1 3 0.289

responsibility, not yours.

You do not need to action to reduce the risk of 5 3 0.227

loss due to wildfire because the risk is not that great. 
9

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

The statements receiving the least support indicate that there is widespread agreement that participants believe their properties are at risk of wildfire, wildfire risk 

reduction actions are effective, that respondents do not believe that having insurance 

is a 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 one of the survey responses to the 17 attitude statements are statistically 

similar between 2007 and 2010 reflecting relatively stable attitudes about wildfire 

(see Appendix B). We see a 17% increase in those who agree that they do not 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. 

Perceptions of Wildfire Risk

In assessing perceptions of risk, we asked respondents 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 examine the items that are perceived as major contributors to wildfire risk (Table 6). As in 2007, 2010 respondents focus primarily on 

ignitions: human activity (79%) and weather-related natural starts such as lightning 

(72%) as the greatest contributors. 

In assessing the characteristics of their own and neighboring properties, 59% of 

respondents indicate that they think their own vegetation and 61% thought neighboring vegetation is a major contributor to the chances of a wildfire damaging their 

property.

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 68 79 0.011

Weather-related natural starts (e.g., lightening) 71 72 0.890

Vegetation on your neighbors’ properties 53 61 0.081

Vegetation on your property 38 59 0.000

Vegetation on nearby National Forest or National Park 50 50 1.000

Physical characteristics of your property other than 37 48 0.018

vegetation (e.g., steep inclines) 

Vegetation on other nearby public land (e.g., Open 43 45 0.644

Space or greenbelt) 

Physical characteristics of your house or other 25 43 0.000

buildings (e.g., roofing or siding) 

Availability of roads for you to exit community and 26 37 0.009

emergency vehicles to enter community
10

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

Compared to 2007, survey respondents’ perceptions of wildfire risk show statistically 

significant increases on six of the nine assessed factors (listed here in order of the 

size of change): (1) vegetation on their property, (2) physical characteristics of their 

homes, (3) availability of access/egress from their community, (4) human activity, 

(5) physical characteristics of their property other than vegetation (e.g., steep incline), and (6) vegetation on neighbors’ properties. Twenty-one percent more survey 

respondents (from 38% in 2007 to 59% in 2010) 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. Eighteen percent more survey respondents feel that 

the physical characteristics of their homes are a major contributor to their wildfire 

risk. Eleven percent more respondents identify access/egress as a major contributor. 

While access and egress do not necessarily affect the likelihood of an ignition (though 

arguably more traffic could increase risk from exhaust fires) it is an important factor 

in suppression response as well as evacuation. We see an 11% increase in the percent 

of respondents who identify human activity as a major contributor to wildfire risk. 

Finally, there is a 11% increase in the percentage of respondents (from 37% in 2007 

to 48% in 2010) that report that the physical characteristics of their property other 

than vegetation (e.g., steep inclines) is a major contributor to the chances of a wildfire 

damaging their property in the next five years. While non-vegetative parcel characteristics, such as steep incline, are not features that are easily altered the significantly 

higher attention to respondents’ own vegetation is an increase that is promising for 

forest and fire managers who are interested in seeing property owners reduce vegetation on their parcels. Further, vegetative reduction can be used to decrease the extent 

to which non-alterable factors, such as how a structure is sited on a parcel, affects 

wildfire risk (i.e., targeting more intensive fuel reduction on the downhill side of a 

structure).

Eight percent more respondents report that neighboring vegetation contributes a lot 

to their chances of wildfire risk is only marginally significant. This finding suggests 

that in 2010 the survey respondents might be 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.

To better understand how respondents think might be affected by wildfire, we asked 

them to rate the likelihood of a series of outcomes if there is a wildfire on their property. Here we present the frequency of those reporting the queried outcomes were 

likely or very likely (Table 7). We see that that in 2010, the outcome thought to be 

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

landscape would burn (82%). Similarly, 73% of respondents believe that there is a 

high likelihood that there would be smoke damage. Well over half of the respondents 

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

(55%). Though 64% of respondents believe that there is a high likelihood that a fire 

would result in some physical damage to their home, only 40% believe their home 

would be destroyed. 

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. 
11

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

Eighty-two percent of 2010 respondents believe that there is a high likelihood that 

a wildfire would result in such losses compared to 74% in 2007. Between 2007 and 

2010, we see an increase in the reported likelihood of several other possible firerelated outcomes. In 2010, 73% of respondents believe there is a high likelihood 

that a fire could result in smoke damage compared to 58% of 2007 respondents. 

We also see a significant increase (50% to 64%) in those who believe there is a high 

likelihood that a fire on their property would result in their homes being damaged 

and marginally significant increase (31% to 39%) 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 26% believing their pets would likely be harmed in 2010 compared to 

18% in 2007. 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 

in those who believe it is likely that the fire department would save their home and 

an even smaller increase in those who believe they would be able to put the fire out.

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 (78%) was the most frequently reported source of information about 

wildfire risk and, at 86% reporting a lot of confidence, it was one of the two information sources with the highest rating with respect to confidence in the accuracy of 

the information. The Boulder County wildfire specialist was the other most highly 

rated information source with respect to confidence in accuracy of information (78% 

reporting confidence). The second most commonly reported information source was 

the media (51%), but it was the least highly rated information source with respect to 

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. 74 82 0.044

There would be some smoke damage 58 73 0.002 

to your home. 

There would be some physical damage 50 64 0.001 

to your home.

The fire department would save your home. 48 55 0.134

You would suffer financial losses due to the 23 41 0.000

loss of business/income on your property. 

Your home would be destroyed. 31 39 0.040

Your pets would be harmed (include 18 26 0.029 

non-income generating livestock). 

You would put the fire out. 16 21 0.164
12

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

confidence in accuracy of information (34%). Neighborhood groups were reported 

as an information source by 43% of the survey respondents; neighbors, family, and 

friends were reported to provide information to 46% of the survey respondents. 

Survey respondents expressed similar levels of confidence in both neighborhood 

groups (50%) and neighbors and friends (42%). About a third of respondents said 

they received information about reducing the risk of wildfire from the Colorado State 

Forest Service (37%), U.S. Forest Service (30%), or Boulder County wildfire specialist (42%). All three of these sources had high ratings in terms of confidence in the 

accuracy of information provided (ranging from 75% to 78%). 

Compared to 2007, survey respondents express a statistically significant greater level 

of confidence in the Boulder County wildfire specialist (a 17% increase) as an accurate information source. It is clear that the 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. There is also a 10% increase in those reporting high confidence in 

the National Park Service as an accurate information source. Finally, we also find 

a statistically significant decrease in those reporting that they had not received any 

wildfire risk information (a 7% decrease) indicating that outreach efforts are reaching 

more people over time.

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 Boulder County wildfire specialist, a list of 12 

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

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

Table 8—Information sources and confidence in accuracy (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 73 78 83 86

Media 55 51 34 34

Neighbors, friends, family 43 46 43 42

Neighborhood group 36 43* 46 50

County wildfire specialist 36 42 61 78***

Colorado State Forest Service 34 37 73 77

U.S. Forest Service 25 30 69 75

National Park Service 8 5 59 69**

None 10 3*** - -

aThis table is sorted from high to low based on reporting of the accuracy question.
13

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

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. The action taken by the highest number of respondents (85%) is “Removed 

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

or other buildings.” Removing branches, thinning trees and shrubs within a 30 

foot perimeter around their house or other structures and installing a visible house 

number (both 80%) constitutes the next most common actions. These actions are 

followed closely by mowing grasses and raking leaves (both 79%), which represent 

two of the least costly and least physically challenging actions homeowners can take 

to reduce risk within the home ignition zone (Cohen 2000). In terms of structural 

changes, installing fire resistant roofing is the most common action (62%). Installing 

fire resistant siding on their home or other buildings and installing screening over 

roof vents are the two measures implemented least frequently (30% and 23%, 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. 

Table 9—Reported mitigation actions.a

Percent reporting 

completion/maintenance

of each action p-value for

Mitigation actions 2007 2010 McNemar’s test

Remove dead or overhanging branches within 77 85 0.044

30 feet of home

Install visible house number 75 80 0.211

Thin trees and shrubs within 30 feet of home 68 80 0.003

Mowed long grasses within 30 feet of home 74 79 0.071

Clear leaves and needles from roof and/or yard 69 79 0.030

within 30 feet of home

Prune limbs 6-10 feet from ground within 65 71 0.126

30 feet of home

Install fire resistant roof 59 62 0.377

Thin trees and shrubs 30-100 feet of home 57 62 0.193

Remove dead or overhanging branches 51 62 0.021

30-100 feet of home

Prune limbs 6-10 feet from ground 48 57 0.052

30-100 feet of home

Install screens over roof vents 25 30 0.262

Install fire resistant siding 22 23 0.678

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.
14

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

While the levels of completion for every mitigation action increase from 2007 to 

2010, six of these increases are statistically significant. There is an increase in the 

frequency of survey respondents reporting they had taken action to remove dead or 

overhanging branches within a 30 foot perimeter around the house or other buildings 

(an 8% increase) as well as in the area 30-100 feet from the home or other structures 

(an 11% increase). There is also a significant increase in reported thinning of trees 

and shrubs within a 30-foot perimeter around the house or other buildings (a 12% 

increase); as well as a significant increase in reported pruning limbs so the lowest is 

6-10 feet from the ground in the area 30-100 feet from the home or other structures 

(an 9% increase). It is notable that these four items require more effort than mowing or clearing leaves or needles indicating that participants are exerting more effort 

in their mitigation actions. Finally, there is a significant 10% increase in raking and 

removing leaves from the roof and/or yard within a 30 foot perimeter of the home 

to reduce wildfire risk and a significant 5% increase in mowing long grasses in the 

same area.

Respondents were asked how much of a consideration expense, time, physical difficulty, lack of information and likelihood of a fire on their property are in their 

decision to take action to reduce wildfire risk (Table 10). While the likelihood of 

wildfire being on a respondent’s property remains among the strongest considerations 

(with 52% in 2007 and 55% in 2010 of respondents indicating it is a strong consideration), we see a significant and dramatic increase in the portion of respondents 

indicating that the cost of taking action is a strong consideration. In 2007 only 25% 

indicated this was a strong consideration compared to 60% of 2010 respondents indicating as much only three years later. We suspect that the economic downturn after 

the 2007 survey is largely responsible for this change, rather than market changes to 

the costs associated with fuel reduction or structural improvements in the time period between the surveys; however, this change may also be attributed to respondents 

developing a fuller understanding of the actions and expense required to mitigate. 

Along with a higher percentage indicating financial costs are a consideration, we find 

significant increases in those reporting that the physical difficulty of doing the work 

and time requirements are strong considerations for taking action. 

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

Financial expense/ cost of taking action 25% 60% 0.000

The likelihood of a wildfire being on your property 52% 55% 0.615

Physical difficulty of doing the work 25% 43% 0.000

Time it takes to implement actions 24% 43% 0.000

Lack of specific information about how to reduce risk 11% 17% 0.111
15

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

Determinants of Mitigation Actions

To better understand who adopts different mitigation strategies, we categorized 

respondents into groups based on the number of mitigation actions they reported 

implementing: low mitigators (implemented 0 to 4 measures), mid-level mitigators 

(5 to 9 measures), and high mitigators (10 or more measures). We see significant 

differences in mitigation level between the two surveys and an increase from 21% in 

2007 to 33% in 2010 of those who fall into the category of high mitigators, or those 

who have implemented 10 or more mitigation actions (Table 11). 

We then conducted contingency table analyses using 2010 mitigation responses to 

look at 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.

Table 11—Mitigation level by year.

2007 2010

- - - Percent - - -

Low (0–4 actions taken) 19 15

Mid (5–9 actions taken) 60 52

High (10+ actions taken) 21 33

McNemar-Bowker test = 12.662; p-value = 0.005 

Characteristics of Survey Respondents And Mitigation

With respect to age, we do not find a significant relationship between age quartiles 

and 2010 level of mitigation (Pearson’s chi-square = 10.132; p = 0.119). We do not 

find a statistically significant relationship between age and mitigation level in 2007. 

Gender is not found to be significantly related to the level or mitigation (Pearson’s 

chi-square = 2.762; p = 0.251). The lack of a relationship between gender and mitigation level is consistent with the 2007 data. Based on an earlier qualitative study 

that included Boulder County WUI residents, we speculate that this may be due to 

the fact that mitigation actions tend to be household decisions that reflect negotiated decisions (Brenkert-Smith and others 2006). Similarly, we find no significant 

relationships between race, employment, education, income, or marital status and 

mitigation levels.

Place of Residence and Mitigation

We do not find evidence of a statistically significant relationship between mitigations 

levels or between level of mitigation and lot size or plans to move in the next five 

years. 
16

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

Neighbors and Mitigation

We see significant associations between perceived density on respondent’s own property and neighbors’ properties and mitigation level. Fifty percent of high mitigators 

report that the vegetation on their property was dense at the time of move-in compared to only 25% of low mitigators (Pearson’s chi-square = 5.095; p = 0.078). In 

contrast, only 2% of high mitigators report that the vegetation on their property is 

currently dense compared to 18% of low mitigators (Pearson’s chi-square = 7.227; 

p = 0.027). 

When respondents report on vegetation density on their neighbors’ properties, 67% 

of high mitigators report that their neighbors had dense vegetation at the time of 

move-in compared to 36% of low mitigators (Pearson’s chi-square = 7.595; p = 

0.022). These results may indicate that high mitigators are more aware of or attuned 

to the vegetation on their neighbors’ properties due to the conditions, the proximity 

of homes to parcel boundaries, or other reasons not captured in the existing data. We 

do not, however, see significant differences between mitigation level and respondents’ 

reports on the current vegetation density on their neighbors’ properties (Pearson’s 

chi-square = 1.725; p = 0.422). 

The data suggest the importance of social interactions and mitigation behaviors. We 

see a significant relationship between mitigation level and talking with a neighbor 

about wildfire with 95% of high mitigators report talking with a neighbor compared to 75% of low mitigators (Pearson’s chi-square 8.042; p = 0.018). We also 

see a significant relationship between respondents reporting that their neighbors reduced risk and respondents taking action themselves with 87% of high mitigators 

reporting having active neighbors compared to only 54% of low mitigators (Pearson’s 

chi-square = 12.423; p = 0.014).

Experience with Wildfire and Mitigation 

We see a significant relationship between fire experience and wildfire mitigation activity. Of the respondents reporting having had a fire on their property (10% of 

respondents), 32% are high mitigators and 63% are mid-level mitigators compared 

to only 5% being low mitigators. Of the 84% of respondents who experienced fire 

within 10 miles of their properties, 35% are high mitigators and 52% are mid-level mitigators compared to only 13% being low mitigators (Pearson’s chi-square = 

20.350; p = 0.000). In contrast, we see that 58% of those who have had fire more 

than 10 miles away are low mitigators compared to 33% who are mid-level and 8% 

who are high mitigators. 

We also see a significant relationship between evacuation experience and mitigation 

level with 70% of high mitigators reporting having evacuated while 55% of low mitigators do not report experience with evacuation or preparing to evacuate (Pearson’s 

chi-square: 14.508; p = 0.006). We do not see a significant relationship between 

having suffered wildfire-related damages, wildfire experience at a previous residence, 

or knowing someone who had evacuated or suffered wildfire-related losses and mitigation level.
17

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

We see a significant relationship between reported awareness of wildfire risk at time 

of moving into their current residence and mitigation activity (Pearson’s chi-square = 

16.770; p = 0.010). Of those reporting being very aware, 56% were high mitigators 

compared to only 30% of mid-level mitigators and 21% of low mitigators – indicating that those knowingly moving into a fire-prone area may be more willing to act 

on that known risk. 

Attitudes Toward Wildfire and Mitigation

Despite seeing significant increases in respondents reporting financial expense, physical efforts, and time required as important considerations when deciding to take 

action (Table 6) we find little association between these considerations and mitigation 

outcomes. For example, financial cost, physical difficulty, lack of specific information, and the likelihood of a wildfire being on their property are not significantly 

related to mitigation outcomes. The only significant association found is between the 

time required to implement risk reduction measures and mitigation level. Of those 

indicating that the time it takes to implement actions is a consideration, 56% are 

mid-level mitigators compared to 20% low and 24% high mitigators (Pearson’s chisquare = 7.202; p = 0.027). 

When we asked survey respondents to indicate their strength of agreement with 17 

statements about wildfire risk we find statistically significant relationships between 

six of the items and mitigation levels. Mid-level and high mitigators are more likely 

to agree with the following statement than low mitigators: “During a wildfire, saving 

homes should be a priority over saving forests.” Eighty-nine percent of mid-level and 

79% of high mitigators agree with the statement compared with 62% of low mitigators (Pearson’s chi-square = 10.777; p = 0.005). 

In contrast, we see that low mitigators are more likely to agree with the statement: 

“You don’t take action to reduce the risk of loss due to a wildfire because if a wildfire 

reaches your property firefighters will protect your home” than mid-level or high 

mitigators. (Pearson’s chi-square = 9.725; p = 0.008). In these data, only 2% of midlevel and high level mitigators (compared to 14% of low mitigators) agree with this 

statement. These results may indicate that respondents are using mitigation activity 

as a way to bolster the likelihood that firefighters will evaluate their homes defensible.

In some cases, high and low mitigators have more in common. For example, 40% of 

high and 40% of low mitigators agree with the statement: “Naturally occurring wildfire is 

not the problem; people who choose to live in fire prone areas are the problem.” Whereas 

only 21% of mid-level mitigators agreed (Pearson’s chi-square = 8.777; p = 0.012).

Finally and interestingly, we see that compared to low and high mitigators, mid-level 

mitigators were more likely to agree with the statements: 

•	 Your property is not at risk of wildfire. (Pearson’s chi-square = 5.789; p = 

0.055)

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

(Pearson’s chi-square = 6.318; p = 0.042) 

•	 Wildfires that threaten human life should be put out. (Pearson’s chisquare = 5.016; p = 0.081). 
18

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

Perceptions of Wildfire Risk and Mitigation

When considering the relationship between likely outcomes given a wildfire burning 

on their property and mitigation outcomes, we see remarkable consistency across 

mitigation level in regards to expected fire outcomes. We find no statistical differences between mitigation level and perceived likelihood of being able to put out the fire 

themselves with less than a quarter of each group reporting thinking that outcome is 

very likely (Pearson’s chi-square = 2.022; p = 0.364).

The respondents are fairly confident in the likelihood that the fire department would 

save their home with over 50% of each group indicating they think that this outcome 

is likely or very likely (Pearson’s chi-square = 0.458; p = 0.795). Despite confidence in 

the ability of a fire department to save their homes, about 70% of each group indicate 

that they think there is a high likelihood that their home would suffer smoke damage 

(Pearson’s chi-square = 1.253; p = 0.534) and 63% of mid-level and high compared 

to 70% of low mitigators believe there is a high likelihood that their home would 

suffer damage (Pearson’s chi-square = 0.504; p = 0.777). About 40% of each group 

think that there is a high likelihood that their home would be destroyed (Pearson’s 

chi-square = 0.674; p = 0.714).

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

likelihood of suffering financial losses (Pearson’s chi-square = 0.714; p = 0.700). 

Similarly, we see no significant differences in perceived likelihood of landscape burning, pets being harmed, or neighbors’ homes being damaged. Over 75% of each 

group believe that their landscape would burn (Pearson’s chi-square = 1.972; p = 

0.373) while most believe that their pets would not be harmed (Pearson’s chi-square = 

1.057; p = 0.589). The groups are almost evenly split with at least 55% of each group 

believing their neighbors’ homes would experience damage and those that believed 

otherwise (Pearson’s chi-square = 0.652; p = 0.722).

We did find a significant relationship between perceived contributors to wildfire 

risk and wildfire risk mitigation levels (Pearson’s chi-square = 5.812; p = 0.055). 

Forty-eight percent of participants believe that the physical characteristics of their 

properties, other than vegetation (such as slope), contribute to the chances that wildfire risk will damage their property. Within this group, 41% of high mitigators and 

50% are mid-level mitigators whereas 10% are low mitigators.

Fifty percent of the respondents believe that their neighbors’ vegetation contributes 

to the chances that wildfire risk will damage their property. Within this group, the 

majority are mid-level mitigators (48%) and high-level mitigators (41%). Only 11% 

of low-mitigators believe that vegetation on their neighbors’ properties contributes to 

the chances that wildfire risk will damage their property (Pearson’s chi-square = 9.012; 

p = 0.011). In contrast, there are no significant associations between mitigation level 

and vegetation on one’s own property, physical characteristics of participants’ homes 

or other buildings, vegetation on nearby National Forest or National Park lands or 

on other public lands, human activity, weather-related natural starts, or availability 

of access/egress roads. 
19

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

Despite seeing significant increases in reported concern between 2007 and 2010 surveys, there are no significant associations between reported concern in 2010 and 

mitigation level (see Table 4 for items queried). 

Wildfire Risk Information Sources and Mitigation

Compared to low mitigators, both mid-level and high mitigators are more likely to 

have received information from a variety of information sources. There is a significant 

relationship between the percent of respondents that received information from the 

volunteer fire department (VFD) and their level of mitigation. Fifty percent of those 

who received information from the VFD are mid-level mitigators, 38% are high-level 

mitigators, whereas only 12% are low mitigators (Pearson’s chi-square = 9.506; p = 

0.009). Among the 42% of respondents who received information from the county 

wildfire specialist, 49% are mid-level, 42% are high-level mitigators, and only 9% 

are low mitigators (Pearson’s chi-square = 6.389; p = 0.041). Among the 37% of 

respondents who received information from the Colorado State Forest Service, 43% 

are mid-level and high level mitigators and only 14% are low mitigators (Pearson’s 

chi-square = 4.979; p = 0.083).

There is no significant difference between mitigation levels for receiving information 

from neighborhood groups, neighbors, friends, and family; media; USFS; NPS; and 

for those reporting receiving no information. Likewise, there are no significant difference between mitigation level and reported confidence in wildfire risk information 

sources. 

Climate and Wildfire

As the scientific evidence documenting the links between climate change and wildfire 

activity is being strengthened (Westerling 2006; Climate Central 2012), we were 

interested in understanding how those living in fire-prone areas understand the link. 

As such, in 2010 we added a series of questions that specifically addressed climate 

and wildfire to the survey. Since we did not ask these questions in 2007, we cannot 

examine change over time. However, our 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. Importantly, we see that over half (55%) of respondents feel 

that they are knowledgeable about climate change. 

With regard to the climate-wildfire link we see that over half (59%) of respondents 

believe that climate change has already increased the risk but less than 20% 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 
20

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

the whole, survey respondents recognize the climate/wildfire link that is consistently 

being documented in research on the American West.

Despite the relatively strong demonstration of belief in climate change, the anthropogenic nature of climate change, and the link to wildfire risk we do not find a statistical 

relationship between these beliefs and wildfire mitigation activity. This reflects gaps 

apparent in the research world that until recently has treated global climate modeling 

and hazard management separately. While the effects of climate change will be felt in 

this county in the future there is much to be learned about how those who will feel 

those effects most directly understand and respond to the risks.

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. 

What is particularly unique for this data set is that the surveys were conducted before 

and after a major wildfire event in Boulder County. While we are unable to determine the extent to which the events of the Fourmile Canyon Fire specifically had 

on attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors among study respondents, it is apparent that the 

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 87 0.863 0.930

Most scientists agree that climate change exists 84 2.250 0.690

Most scientists agree climate change is caused by humans 74 0.510 0.982

Humans are largely responsible for climate change 72 0.943 0.918

Climate change has increased the risk of wildfires in 

Boulder and Larimer counties 59 4.121 0.390

I know a lot about climate change 55 2.196 0.700

Climate change has not yet increased wildfire risk 

in Larimer and Boulder counties but it will in the future 19 1.667 0.797

I am skeptical about the existence of climate change 11 2.087 0.720

Climate change is a hoax 9 1.530 0.821

Climate change and wildfire risk are not related 9 2.189 0.701
21

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

Boulder County respondents demonstrated change over time in different ways than 

the respondents in the adjacent Larimer County (See RN ## TBA). 

The data from this survey, along with the companion data from Larimer 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.

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 Boulder County, Colorado 2007. Res. Note RMRS-RN-47. 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-57. 2013

Appendix	
  A:	
  Boulder	
  County	
  2010	
  Survey

Living with Wildfire in Colorado

	
  	
  	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

University	
  of	
  Colorado	
  at	
  Boulder
23

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

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.	
  	
  

Panel	
  subset:	
  N=195

Mode	
  of	
  response:	
  Paper	
  162	
  (83.1%);	
  Web	
  33	
  (16.9%)

1.1.	
  Do	
  you	
  recall	
  completing	
  the	
  2007	
  survey?	
  (Circle	
  one	
  number) 	
  	
  2007	
  (n=193)

1	
   No	
  (51.8%)

2	
   Yes	
  (48.2%)

1.2.	
  	
  Do	
  you	
  own	
  or	
  rent	
  your	
  current	
  residence?	
  	
  (Circle	
  one	
  number) OWNRENT	
  (n=195)

1 Own	
  (100%)	
  

2 Rent	
  (0%)

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

______ FULLTIME_______	
   Year	
  moved	
  in	
  (n=	
  188)	
  Mean	
  tenure=	
  19.48	
  years

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

___	
  YRBUILD____	
  Year	
  current	
  residence	
  was	
  built	
  (n=195)	
  Mean	
  age	
  of	
  structure=	
  36.74	
  years

1.5.	
  	
  Do	
  you	
  have	
  homeowner’s	
  or	
  renter’s	
  insurance?	
  	
  (Circle	
  one	
  number) INSURE	
  (n=195)	
  
24

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

1 No	
  (1%)

2 Yes	
  (99%)	
  

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

(n=192)	
  Mean	
  =	
  1.81

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

(n=107)	
  Mean	
  =	
  .36

____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=195)

1 No	
  (33.8%)	
  

2 Yes	
  (66.2%)

1.8.	
  	
  What	
  size	
  is	
  your	
  parcel?	
  (Circle	
  one	
  number) LOTSIZE	
  (n=195)

1 Around	
  1⁄4	
  acre	
  or	
  less	
  (1⁄4	
  acre	
  	
  =	
  10,890	
  square	
  feet)	
  (9.2%)

2 1⁄4	
  acre	
  to	
  2	
  acres	
  (50.8%)

3 Larger	
  than	
  2	
  acres	
   (40.0%)	
  

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

(n=75)	
  Mean=	
  10.87	
  acres __ACRES____	
  	
  Number	
  of	
  acres

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

number)

MOVE1	
  (n=192)

1 No	
  →	
  Skip	
  to	
  Section	
  2	
  (84.4%)

2 Yes,	
  move	
  and	
  sell	
  current	
  residence	
  (15.1%)
25

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

3 Yes,	
  move	
  but	
  keep	
  current	
  residence	
  (.5%)

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=31)	
  Mean	
  =	
  2.81 29.0% 16.1% 19.4% 16.1% 19.4%

Traumatic	
  experience	
  at	
  the	
  current	
  

location	
  

1 2 3 4 5

MOVEWHY2	
  (n=30)	
  Mean	
  =	
  1.73 63.3% 10.0% 20.0% 3.3% 3.3%

Change	
  in	
  aesthetic	
  features	
  of	
  the	
  

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

MOVEWHY3	
  (n=31)	
  Mean	
  =	
  2.00 61.3% 0% 16.1% 22.6% 0%

Loss	
  or	
  damage	
  to	
  house	
   1 2 3 4 5

MOVEWHY4	
  (n=31)	
  Mean	
  =	
  1.65 64.5% 12.9% 16.1% 6.5% 0%

Long	
  distance	
  to	
  commute	
  to	
  work	
  place	
   1 2 3 4 5

MOVEWHY5	
  (n=32)	
  Mean=2.28 46.9% 12.5% 15.6% 15.6% 9.4%

Logistical	
  challenges	
  of	
  having	
  school-­‐

aged	
  children	
  

1 2 3 4 5

MOVEWHY6	
  (n=29)	
  Mean	
  =	
  1.34 86.2% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4%

Other	
  (please	
  specify):	
   1 2 3 4 5

MOVEWHY7	
  (n=20)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.90 20.0% 0% 0% 30.0%

50.0%

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=195)

1 There	
  has	
  been	
  a	
  wildfire	
  on	
  your	
  property	
  	
  (10.3%)

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.	
  	
  
26

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

2 Less	
  than	
  10	
  miles	
  (83.6%)

3 More	
  than	
  10	
  miles	
  away	
  (6.2%)

4 Not	
  sure	
  (0%)

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

number)

DAMAGE	
  (n=194)

1 No	
  (92.3%)

2 Yes,	
  my	
  current	
  residence	
  suffered	
  fire	
  and	
  smoke	
  damage	
  (3.6%)

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  3	
  	
  	
  	
   Yes,	
  my	
  current	
  residence	
  suffered	
  only	
  smoke	
  damage	
  (4.1%)

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=195)

1 No	
  (27.2%)

2 Yes,	
  evacuated	
  (62.1%)

3	
   Yes,	
  prepared	
  to	
  evacuate	
  (10.8%)

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

one	
  number) PREVIOUS	
  (n=195)

1 No	
  (84.6%)

2 Yes	
  (15.4%)

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

(Circle	
  all	
  that	
  apply)	
  	
  (n=195)

1 No,	
  you	
  don’t	
  know	
  anyone	
  who	
  was	
  ever	
  evacuated	
  	
  KNOW1	
  (5.66.8%)
27

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

2 Yes,	
  you	
  know	
  someone	
  who	
  was	
  evacuated	
  in	
  the	
  last	
  5	
  years	
  KNOW2	
  (93.3%)

3 Yes,	
  you	
  know	
  someone	
  who	
  was	
  evacuated	
  more	
  than	
  5	
  years	
  ago	
  KNOW3	
  (19.0%)

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

(Circle	
  all	
  that	
  apply)	
  (n=195)

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

(34.4%)

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

(61.0%)

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

(13.8%)

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=195)

1 Not	
  aware	
  (11.3%)

2 Somewhat	
  aware	
  (49.2%)

3 Very	
  aware	
  (37.4%)

4 Don’t	
  remember	
  (2.1%)

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

susceptible	
  to	
  wildfire?	
  (Circle	
  one	
  number)	
  	
  	
  PROPRISK	
  (n=194)

1 No	
  (44.8%)

2 Yes	
  (55.2%)→	
  (please	
  specify):	
  ______PROPWHAT______________________
28

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

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=194) Mean= 3.72 3.6% 14.9% 22.2% 24.7% 34.5%

Physical characteristics of your property other than 

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

CONTRIB2 (n=190) Mean = 3.31 14.2% 13.7% 24.2% 23.2% 24.7%

Physical characteristics of your house or other buildings 

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

CONTRIB3 (n=192) Mean= 3.21 9.4% 25.5% 21.9% 21.4% 21.9%

Vegetation on your neighbors’ properties 1 2 3 4 5

CONTRIB4 (n=192) Mean= 3.70 7.3% 14.1% 18.2% 21.9% 38.5%

Vegetation on nearby National Forest or National Park 1 2 3 4 5

CONTRIB5 (n=186) Mean= 3.17 25.3% 13.4% 11.8% 18.3% 31.2%

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

Space or greenbelt) 1 2 3 4 5

CONTRIB6 (n=179) Mean= 3.04 27.4% 12.3% 16.2% 16.8% 27.4%

Human activity 1 2 3 4 5

CONTRIB7 (n=190) Mean= 4.22 4.2% 5.8% 11.1% 21.6% 57.4%

Weather-related natural wildfire starts (e.g., lightning) 1 2 3 4 5

CONTRIB8 (n=191) Mean= 4.02 1.6% 4.7% 22.0% 33.5% 38.2%

Availability of roads to exit community and emergency 

vehicles to enter community 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-57. 2013

CONTRIB9	
  (n=191)	
  Mean=	
  2.87 22.0% 24.6% 16.2% 18.3% 18.8%

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=195)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.74 1.5% 10.3% 28.7% 31.3% 28.2%

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

CONCERN2	
  (n=195)	
  mean	
  =	
  2.93 17.4% 25.1% 21.5% 19.0% 16.9%

Your	
  ability	
  to	
  earn	
  income	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONCERN3	
  (n=194)	
  Mean	
  =	
  2.00 48.5% 25.3% 10.3% 9.8% 6.2%

Your	
  pets	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONCERN4	
  (n=187)	
  Mean	
  =	
  2.91 31.0% 11.8% 16.0% 17.6% 23.5%

Your	
  property/landscape	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONCERN5	
  (n=193)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.63 3.1% 10.4% 32.1% 29.5% 24.9%

Local	
  water	
  sources	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONCERN6	
  (n=	
  193)	
  Mean	
  =	
  2.81 19.2% 23.3% 30.1% 11.9% 15.5%

Public	
  lands	
  near	
  your	
  home	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONCERN7	
  (n=193)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.40 6.7% 17.1% 26.4% 29.0% 20.7%

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.
30

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

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

action) n=195

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

2.1%

LIMB30M

71.0%

LIMBCP

18.7%

LIMB30NA

4.7%

Removed	
  dead	
  or	
  overhanging	
  branches

BR30C

.5%

BR30M

84.5%

BR30P

12.4%

BR30NA

2.1%

Thinned	
  trees	
  and	
  shrubs

THIN30C

1.6%

THIN30M

79.8%

THIN30P

9.8%

THIN30NA

6.7%

Cleared	
  leaves	
  and	
  pine	
  needles	
  from	
  the	
  roof	
  and/or	
  

yard	
  

LEAF30C

1.0%

LEAF30M

78.8%

LEAF30P

7.3%

LEAF30NA

10.9%

Mowed	
  long	
  grasses	
  

MOW30C

0%

MOW30M

79.3%

MOWCOP

7.3%

MOW30NA

11.4%

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

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

LIMBGT30C

.5%

LIMBGT30M

56.5%

LIMBGT30P

18.1%

LIMBGT30NA

15.0%

Removed	
  dead	
  or	
  overhanging	
  branches

BRGT30C

.5%

BRGT30M

61.7%

BRGT30P

14.0%

BRGT30NA

14.0%

Thinned	
  trees	
  and	
  shrubs	
  

THINGT30C

0%

THINGT30M

62.2%

THINGT30P

16.1%

THINGT30NA

14.0%

Cleared	
  leaves	
  and	
  pine	
  needles	
  from	
  the	
  yard	
  

LEAFGT30C

0%

LEAFGT30M

34.2%

LEAFGT30P

18.7%

LEAFGT30NA

27.5%

Mowed	
  long	
  grasses	
  

MOWFT30C

0%

MOWGT30M

50.8%

MOWGT30P

12.4%

MOWGT30NA

22.8%

To	
  your	
  house:

Installed	
  a	
  fire	
  resistant	
  roof

ROOFC

11.4%

ROOFM

62.2%

ROOFP

6.2%

ROOFNA

9.8%

Installed	
  fire	
  resistant	
  siding	
  on	
  house	
  or	
  other	
  

buildings

SIDEC

5.2%

SIDEM

23.3%

SIDEP

11.9%

SIDENA

33.2%

Installed	
  fire	
  resistant	
  decking	
  

DECKC

2.6%

DECKM

21.2%

DECKP

19.7%

DECKNA

30.1%

Replaced	
  exterior	
  wood	
  stairs	
  and	
  balconies	
   STAIRC

.5%

STAIRM

15.0%

STAIRP

16.1%

STAIRNA

40.9%

Installed	
  screening	
  over	
  roof	
  vents

SCREENC

5.2%

SCREENM

29.5%

SCREENP

13.5%

SCREENNA

28.0%

Installed	
  fire	
  resistant	
  landscaping	
  (ex.	
  rock)	
  within	
  3	
   ROCKC ROCKM ROCKP ROCKNA
31

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

to	
  5	
  feet	
  of	
  the	
  	
  house	
  or	
  other	
  buildings 4.7% 38.3% 13.0% 20.7%

Installed	
  house	
  number	
  in	
  clearly	
  visible	
  place

NUMBERC

8.3%

NUMBERM

79.8%

NUMBERP

8.3%

NUMBERNA

2.6%

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:

Prune	
  limbs	
  so	
  lowest	
  is	
  6-­‐10	
  feet	
  from	
  

the	
  ground	
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

LIMB30PAY	
  (n=121)	
  	
  Mean=	
  2.07 62.8% 16.5% 8.3% 2.5% 0% .8% .8% 8.3%

Remove	
  dead	
  or	
  overhanging	
  branches	
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

BR30PAY	
  (n=116)	
  Mean=	
  1.1.54	
   62.9% 18.1% 9.5% 2.6% 0	
  % .9% .9% 5.2%

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

THIN30PAY	
  (n=120)	
  Mean=	
  1.57	
   51.7% 20.8% 11.7% 1.7% .8% 2.5% 2.5% 8.3%

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=126)	
  Mean=	
  1.87	
   46.0% 22.2% 12.7% 4% 4.0% 0% 2.4% 8.7%

Remove	
  dead	
  or	
  overhanging	
  

branches	
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

BR100PAY	
  (n=120)	
  Mean=	
  1.93	
   50.0% 21.7% 11.7% 2.5% 3.3% 0% 3.3% 7.5%

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

THIN100PAY	
  (n=131)	
  Mean=	
  2.34	
   39.7% 22.1% 12.2% 5.3% 4.6% .8% 6.1% 9.2%

To	
  your	
  house:

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

ROOFPAY	
  (n=103)	
  Mean=	
  5.50	
   10.7% 3.9% 3.9% 6.8% 3.9% 6.8% 53.4% 10.7%

Install	
  fire	
  resistant	
  siding	
  on	
  house	
  

or	
  other	
  buildings	
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

SIDEPAY	
  (n=146)	
  Mean=	
  5.83	
   4.8% 3.4% 3.4% 5.5% 6.8% 7.5% 51.4% 17.1%

Install	
  fire	
  resistant	
  decking	
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
32

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

DECKPAY	
  (n=143)	
  Mean=	
  5.08 5.6% 6.3% 11.2% 7.7% 9.1% 9.1% 34.3% 16.8%

Replace	
  exterior	
  wood	
  stairs	
  and	
  

balconies	
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

STAIRPAY	
  (n=129)	
  Mean=	
  4.83 8.5% 6.2% 9.3% 7.8% 12.4% 7.8% 28.7% 19.4%

Install	
  fire	
  resistant	
  landscaping	
  (ex.	
  

rock)	
  within	
  a	
  3-­‐5	
  ft perimeter	
  of	
  

house	
  or	
  other	
  buildings	
  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ROCKPAY	
  (n=129)	
  Mean=	
  3.50	
   17.1% 14.7% 15.5% 5.4% 9.3% 3.9% 13.2% 20.9%

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=	
  192)

1 No	
  (18.8%)

2 Yes	
  (81.3%)

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=187)

1 No	
  (53.5%)

2 Yes	
  (46.5%)	
   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=	
  185)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.71 9.2% 11.4% 19.5% 18.9% 41.1%

Time	
  it	
  takes	
  to	
  implement	
  actions	
   1 2 3 4 5
33

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 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=195)

1 Local	
  Fire	
  Department	
  SOURCE1	
  78.4%

2 Neighborhood	
  group	
  (homeowners	
  group,	
  local	
  board,	
  etc.)	
  SOURCE2	
  43.2%

3 Neighbors,	
  friends,	
  or	
  family	
  members	
  SOURCE3	
  46.3%

4 Media	
  (newspaper,	
  TV,	
  radio,	
  internet)	
  SOURCE4	
  51.1%

5 County	
  wildfire	
  specialist	
  SOURCE5	
  41.6%

6 Colorado	
  State	
  Forest	
  Service	
  SOURCE6	
  36.8%

7 US	
  Forest	
  Service	
  SOURCE7	
  30.0%

8 National	
  Park	
  Service	
  SOURCE8	
  5.3%

9 Other	
  Please	
  describe:	
  _________SOURCE9	
  10.0%___________________

10 None	
  of	
  the	
  above,	
  you	
  have	
  not	
  received	
  any	
  information	
  about	
  wildfire	
  risk.	
  	
  	
  SOURCE10	
  3.1%

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

CONSID2	
  (n=184)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.12 17.4% 15.2% 24.5% 23.9% 19.0%

Physical	
  difficulty	
  of	
  doing	
  the	
  work	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONSID3	
  (n=185)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.11 18.9% 15.7% 22.2% 22.2% 21.1%

Lack	
  of	
  specific	
  information	
  about	
  	
  how

to	
  reduce	
  risk	
   1 2 3 4 5

CONSID4	
  (n=	
  185)	
  Mean	
  =	
  2.12 43.2% 22.2% 17.8% 12.4% 4.3%

The	
  likelihood	
  of	
  a	
  wildfire	
  being	
  on	
  your	
  

property	
  

1 2 3 4 5

CONSID5	
  (n=184)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.53 13.0% 8.7% 23.4% 22.3% 32.6%

Efficacy	
  of	
  mitigation	
  actions 1 2 3 4 5

CONSID6	
  (n=182)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.37 12.6% 10.4% 29.1% 22.5% 25.3%
34

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

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=187)	
  Mean	
  4.42 .5% 2.1% 11.8% 25.7% 59.9%

Neighborhood	
  group	
  (homeowners	
  group,	
  local	
  

board,	
  etc.)	
  

1 2 3 4 5

SCON2	
  (n=161)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.40 11.2% 9.9% 28.6% 28.6% 21.7%

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

SCON3	
  (n=177)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.35 4.5% 14.1% 39.5% 25.4% 16.4%

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

SCON4	
  (n=	
  174)	
  Mean=	
  3.05 8.6% 18.4% 39.1% 27.6% 6.3%

County	
  wildfire	
  specialist	
   1 2 3 4 5

SCON5	
  (n=168)	
  Mean	
  =	
  4.23 2.4% 3.0% 16.7% 25.0% 53.0%

Colorado	
  State	
  Forest	
  Service	
   1 2 3 4 5

SCON6	
  (n=167)	
  Mean	
  =	
  4.19 1.8% 3.6% 18.0% 27.5% 49.1%

U.S.	
  Forest	
  Service	
   1 2 3 4 5

SCON7	
  (n=162)	
  Mean	
  =	
  4.07 4.3% 4.9% 16.0% 29.0% 45.7%

National	
  Park	
  Service	
   1 2 3 4 5

SCON8	
  (n=146)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.90 5.5% 10.3% 16.4% 24.7% 43.2%

Other:	
  	
  ___

(SCONWHO)_________ 1 2 3 4 5

SCON	
  9	
  (n=20)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.44 18.8% 0.0% 25.0% 31.3% 25.0%
35

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

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=184)	
  Mean=2.22	
   44.0% 21.2% 13.6% 10.9% 10.3% .5%

The	
  fire	
  department	
  would	
  save	
  your	
  

home.	
   1 2 3 4 5 6

LACT2	
  (n=184)	
  Mean=	
  3.58	
   5.4% 12.5% 27.2% 28.3% 26.6% .5%

There	
  would	
  be	
  some	
  smoke	
  damage	
  to	
  

your	
  home.	
   1 2 3 4 5 6

LACT3	
  (n=184)	
  Mean=	
  4.14	
   2.7% 2.7% 21.7% 23.4% 49.5% 1.5%

There	
  would	
  be	
  some	
  physical	
  damage	
  to	
  

your	
  home.	
   1 2 3 4 5 6

LACT4	
  (n=185)	
  Mean=	
  3.91 1.6% 7.0% 27.0% 27.6% 36.8% 1.5%

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

LACT5	
  (n=186)	
  Mean=	
  3.27	
   7.0% 16.7% 37.1% 20.4% 18.8% 1.0%

You	
  would	
  suffer	
  financial	
  losses	
  due	
  to	
  

the	
  loss	
  of	
  business/income	
  on	
  your	
  

property.	
  

1 2 3 4 5 6

LACT6	
  (n=168)	
  Mean=	
  2.87	
   34.5% 14.3% 10.7% 10.7% 29.8% 9.7%

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

LACT7	
  (n=182)	
  Mean=	
  4.37	
   1.6% 3.8% 12.6% 19.2% 62.6% 2.6%

Your	
  pets	
  would	
  be	
  harmed	
  (include	
  non-­‐

income	
  generating	
  livestock).	
   1 2 3 4 5 6

LACT8	
  (n=152)	
  Mean=	
  2.63	
   28.3% 18.4% 27.6% 13.2% 12.5% 14.9%

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-57. 2013

Your	
  neighbors’	
  homes	
  would	
  be	
  

damaged	
  or	
  destroyed.	
   1 2 3 4 5 6

LACT9	
  (n=183)	
  Mean=	
  3.72	
   4.9% 7.1% 29.5% 28.4% 30.1% 1.5%

Your	
  community	
  water	
  supply	
  would	
  be	
  

threatened.	
   1 2 3 4 5 6

LACT10	
  (n=	
  166)	
  Mean=	
  2.51 33.7% 22.9% 16.9% 11.4% 15.1% 9.2%

The	
  fire	
  would	
  spread	
  to	
  nearby	
  public	
  

lands.	
   1 2 3 4 5 6

LACT11	
  (n=178)	
  3.98	
   5.6% 9.6% 14.0% 22.5% 48.3% 4.1%

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

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=186)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.25 7.5% 21.5% 27.4% 25.8% 17.7%

With	
  proper	
  technology,	
  we	
  can	
  control	
  most	
  wildfires	
  

after	
  they	
  have	
  started.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE2	
  (n=187)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.44 1.1% 19.3% 26.7% 40.1% 12.8%

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

STATE3	
  (n=188)	
  Mean	
  =	
  1.57 55.9% 35.6% 5.9% 1.1% 1.6%

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

STATE4	
  (n=185)	
  Mean	
  =	
  1.92 32.4% 49.7% 11.9% 4.9% 1.1%

During	
  a	
  wildfire,	
  saving	
  homes	
  should	
  be	
  a	
  priority	
  

over	
  saving	
  forests.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE5	
  (n=187)	
  Mean	
  = 1.90 35.3% 46.0% 13.9% 3.2% 1.6%

Wildfires	
  are	
  a	
  natural	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  balance	
  of	
  a	
  healthy	
  

forest/ecosystem.	
   1 2 3 4 5
37

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

STATE6	
  (n=191)	
  Mean	
  =	
  1.63 50.8% 38.7% 7.9% 1.6% 1.0%

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=189)	
  Mean	
  =	
  4.41 1.1% 1.6% 4.8% 40.7% 51.9%

You	
  do	
  not	
  have	
  the	
  time	
  to	
  implement	
  wildfire	
  risk	
  

reduction	
  actions.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE8	
  (n=188)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.98 1.1% 5.9% 19.1% 41.5% 32.4%

Strongly	
  

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly	
  

Disagree

You	
  do	
  not	
  have	
  the	
  money	
  for	
  wildfire	
  risk	
  reduction	
  

actions.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE9	
  (n=187)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.24 8.6% 21.9% 23.5% 28.9% 17.1%

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=188)	
  Mean	
  =	
  4.28 1.1% 3.7% 8.06% 41.0% 46.3%

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

them	
  to	
  reduce	
  fire	
  risk.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE11	
  (n=188)	
  Mean	
  =	
  4.11 1.6% 4.3% 12.8% 44.7% 36.7%

A	
  wildfire	
  is	
  unlikely	
  to	
  happen	
  within	
  the	
  time	
  period	
  

you	
  expect	
  to	
  live	
  here.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE12	
  (n=188)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.91 4.8% 5.9% 17.0% 37.8% 34.6%

Managing	
  the	
  wildfire	
  danger	
  is	
  a	
  government	
  

responsibility,	
  not	
  yours.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE13	
  (n=187)	
  Mean	
  =	
  4.12 1.6% 2.1% 17.1% 41.2% 38.0%

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

effective.	
   1 2 3 4 5

STATE14	
  (n=189)	
  Mean	
  =	
  4.09 0.0% 4.2% 18.0% 42.3% 33.4%

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

STATE15	
  (n=190)	
  Mean	
  =	
  4.30 0% 4.7% 6.3% 43.2% 45.8%
38

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

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=188)	
  Mean	
  =	
  4.25 .5% 3.2% 8.0% 47.3% 41.0%

You	
  don’t	
  take	
  action	
  because	
  adjacent	
  properties	
  are	
  

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

STATE17	
  (n=189)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.97 2.1% 7.4% 17.5% 37.0% 36.0%

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

TALKFIRE	
  (n=189)

1 No	
  (14.3%)

2 Yes	
  (85.7%)

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

one	
  number)	
  	
  	
  NACTION	
  (n=189)

1 No	
  15.9%	
   Skip	
  to	
  Question	
  5.5	
  

2 Yes	
  	
  73.5%	
   Please	
  describe:	
  _____ACTIONWHAT___________________________________

3 Don’t	
  know	
  10.6%	
  	
  	
  	
  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=137)

1 You	
  have	
  not	
  taken	
  any	
  action	
  .7%

2 They	
  took	
  action	
  before	
  you	
  did	
  10.2%

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-57. 2013

3 They took	
  action	
  after	
  you	
  did	
  34.3%

4 They	
  plan	
  to	
  take	
  action	
  .7%

5 We	
  took	
  action	
  around	
  the	
  same	
  time	
  40.9%

6 Don’t	
  know	
  13.1%

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=140)

1 No	
  43.6%

2 Yes,	
  on	
  your	
  property	
  5.0%

3 Yes,	
  on	
  your	
  neighbors’	
  properties	
  11.4%

4 Yes,	
  on	
  both	
  40.0%

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=188)

1 No	
  19.1%

2 Yes	
  67.0%

3 Don’t	
  know	
  13.8%	
  

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=189)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.33 7.9% 12.7% 35.4% 26.5% 17.5%

Currently,	
  the	
  vegetation	
  on	
  your property	
  is...	
   1 2 3 4 5
40

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

VEG2	
  (n=188)	
  Mean	
  =	
  2.56 6.9% 39.9% 45.2% 5.9% 2.1%

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

properties	
  neighboring	
  yours was...	
  

1 2 3 4 5

VEG3	
  (n=187)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.53 4.3% 10.7% 29.9% 38.0% 17.1%

Currently,	
  the	
  vegetation	
  on	
  most	
  of	
  the	
  properties	
  

neighboring	
  yours is... 1 2 3 4 5

VEG4	
  (n=185)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.19 3.2% 15.7% 47.0% 26.5% 7.6%

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=175)

1 No	
  14.3%

2 Yes	
  85.7%

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=169)

1 No	
  40.7%

2 Yes	
  59.3%

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

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-57. 2013

Build	
  up	
  of	
  vegetation	
  on	
  public	
  land.	
   1 2 3 4 5

DANGER1	
  (n=188)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.81 5.3% 5.9% 27.1% 25.5% 36.2%

The	
  number	
  of	
  houses	
  being	
  built	
  in	
  your	
  

community.	
   1 2 3 4 5

DANGER2	
  (n=186)	
  Mean	
  =	
  2. 49 21.5% 31.2% 30.1% 10.8% 6.5%

Timber	
  cutting	
  practices.	
   1 2 3 4 5

DANGER3(n=185)	
  Mean	
  =	
  2.63 25.9% 20.0% 28.1% 16.8% 9.2%

Vandalism	
  and/or	
  arson.	
   1 2 3 4 5

DANGER4	
  (n=187)	
  Mean	
  =	
  2.67 23.0% 27.3% 24.1% 10.7% 15.0%

Recreational	
  use	
  on	
  public	
  lands.	
   1 2 3 4 5

DANGER5	
  (n=186)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.45 7.5% 12.4% 31.7% 24.7% 23.7%

Natural	
  processes	
  (droughts,	
  changes	
  in	
  vegetation	
  

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

DANGER6	
  (n=189)	
  Mean	
  =	
  4.22 0.0% 2.6% 16.9% 36.5% 43.9%

Larger	
  environmental	
  changes	
  such	
  as	
  global	
  

warming.	
   1 2 3 4 5

DANGER7	
  (n=	
  186)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.31 14.0% 10.8% 28.5% 23.7% 23.1%

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

DANGER8	
  (n=188)	
  Mean	
  =	
  4.16 1.1% 4.8% 13.8% 37.8% 42.6%

Accidental	
  ignitions	
   1 2 3 4 5

DANGER10	
  (n=189)	
  Mean	
  =	
  4.21 0.0% 3.7% 16.0% 32.3% 46.0%

Other	
  (please	
  specify):	
  __

(DANGERWHY)___________ 1 2 3 4 5

DANGER9	
  (n=20)	
  Mean	
  =	
  4.00 10.0% 5.0% 10.0% 25.0% 50.0%

Section	
  7:	
  	
  In	
  this	
  section,	
  we	
  are	
  interested	
  in	
  your	
  perspectives	
  on	
  climate	
  change.
42

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

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

Strongly	
  

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly	
  

Disagree

Climate	
  change	
  is	
  real	
   1 2 3 4 5

CLIMATE1	
  (n=190)	
  Mean	
  =	
  1.51 61.6% 25.3% 6.8% 3.2% 3.2%

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

CLIMATE2	
  (n=188)	
  Mean	
  =	
  2.12 41.0% 30.9% 12.8% 6.4% 9.0%

Climate	
  change	
  is	
  a	
  hoax	
   1 2 3 4 5

CLIMATE3	
  (n=188)	
  Mean=	
  4.38 3.2% 5.9% 5.9% 19.7% 65.4%

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

CLIMATE4	
  (n=186)	
  mean	
  =	
  4.25 4.3% 6.5% 9.1% 20.4% 59.7%

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

CLIMATE5	
  (n=187)	
  Mean	
  2.38 16.0% 38.5% 38.5% 5.3% 1.6%

Climate	
  change	
  has	
  increased	
  the	
  risk	
  of	
  wildfires	
  in	
  

Boulder	
  and	
  Larimer	
  counties	
   1 2 3 4 5

CLIMATE6	
  (n=	
  189)	
  Mean	
  =	
  2.38 22.2% 37.0% 27.0% 7.9% 5.8%

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=185)	
  Mean	
  =	
  3.39 5.4% 14.1% 34.1% 28.6% 17.8%

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

CLIMATE8	
  (n=189)	
  Mean	
  =	
  1.85 42.3% 41.3% 9.0% 4.2% 3.2%

Most	
  scientists	
  agree	
  that	
  climate	
  change	
  is	
  caused	
  

by	
  humans	
   1 2 3 4 5

CLIMATE9	
  (n=187)	
  Mean	
  =	
  2.11 30.5% 43.3% 15.5% 5.9% 4.8%

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

CLIMATE10	
  (n=188)	
  Mean	
  =	
  4.07 5.3% 3.2% 13.8% 34.0% 43.6%
43

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

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

___AGE______	
  Years	
  old	
  (n=188)	
  Mean	
  =	
  59.41

8.2.	
  	
  Are	
  you?	
  (Circle	
  one	
  number) GENDER	
  (n=184)	
  

1	
   Male	
  53.3%

2 Female	
  46.7%

8.3.	
  	
  What	
  is	
  your	
  racial	
  or	
  ethnic	
  group?	
  (Circle	
  all	
  that	
  apply) (n=193)

1 White RACE1	
  94.8%

2 Black	
  or	
  African	
  American	
  RACE2	
  	
  0.0%

3 Hispanic	
  RACE3	
  1.0%

4 American	
  Indian	
  or	
  Alaskan	
  Native	
  RACE3	
  1.0%

5 Asian	
  RACE4	
  0.5%

6 Other	
  RACE5	
  2.6%

8.4.	
  	
  What	
  best	
  describes	
  your	
  current	
  marital	
  status?	
  (Circle	
  one	
  number)	
  MARRY	
  (n=187)

1 Now	
  Married	
  67.9%

2 Widowed	
  7.0%

3 Divorced	
  13.9%

4 Never	
  Married	
  11.2%

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

this	
  survey,	
  your	
  responses	
  are	
  completely	
  confidential.	
  	
  

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-57. 2013

8.5.	
  	
  What is	
  the	
  highest	
  grade	
  or	
  year	
  of	
  school	
  you	
  completed?	
  (Circle	
  one	
  number) EDUC	
  (n=190)

1 Eighth grade or less 0 %

2 Some high school 0%

3 High school graduate 2.1%

4 Some college or technical school 8.9%

5 Technical or trade school 2.6%

6 College graduate 32.6%

7 Some graduate work 10.0%

8 Advanced Degree (M.D., M.A., M.S., Ph.D., etc.) 43.7%

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

EMPLOY	
  (n=192)

1 Employed	
  full	
  time	
  	
  35.4%

2 Employed	
  part	
  time	
  12.5%

3 Unemployed	
  1.6%

4 Self-­‐employed	
  18.2%

5 Retired	
  32.3%

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

(n=171)

1 Less	
  than	
  $25,000	
  5.3%

2 $25,000	
  -­‐ $34,999	
  5.3%

3 $35,000	
  – $49,999	
  12.9%

4 $50,000	
  -­‐ $74,999	
  16.4%

5 $75,000	
  -­‐ $99,999	
  17.0%
45

Research Note RMRS-RN-57. 2013

6 $100,000	
  -­‐ $124,999	
  17.5%

7 $125,000	
  -­‐ $200,000	
  19.9%

8 More	
  than	
  $200,000	
  5.8%

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-57. 2013

Appendix B 

Percent agreeing/strongly agreeing 2007 McNemar

with the following statements subset 2010 test (p-value)

- - - -Percent - - - -

Wildfires that threaten human life 91 92 0.664

should be put out.

Wildfires are a natural part of the 89 90 0.856

balance of a healthy forest/ecosystem.

Wildfires that threaten property should 81 82 1.000

be put out.

During a wildfire, saving homes should 79 81 0.743

be a priority over saving forests.

You do not have the money for wildfire 14 31 0.000

risk reduction actions.

Naturally occurring wildfire is not the 30 29 1.000

problem; people who choose to live in 

fire prone areas are the problem.

With proper technology, we can control 24 20 0.322

 most wildfires after they have started.

A wildfire is unlikely to happen within 8 11 0.503

the time period you expect to live here.

You don’t take action because adjacent 7 10 0.238

properties are not treated leaving your 

actions ineffective.

You do not have the time to implement 7 7 1.000

wildfire risk reduction actions.

You live here for the trees and will not 7 6 0.824

remove any of them to reduce fire risk.

You do not need to act to reduce the 2 5 0.267

risk of loss due to wildfire because 

you have insurance.

Actions to reduce the risk of loss due to 4 4 1.000

 wildfire are not effective.

Your property is not at risk of wildfire. 3 5 0.549

You don’t take action to reduce the risk of 2 4 0.344

loss due to wildfire because if a wildfire 

reaches your property firefighters will 

protect your home.

Managing the wildfire danger is a 1 3 0.289 

government responsibility, not yours.

You do not need to take action to reduce 5 3 0.227

the risk of loss due to wildfire because the 

risk is not that great. 
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