Preferences for Hazardous Fuel Treatments: Evidence from a Survey of Forest Service Personnel and the General Public

In recent decades, the United States has experienced dangerous increases in the prevalence and severity of annual wildfire events. The management of hazardous fuels can mitigate the spread and severity of wildfire events by removing or reorganizing excess woody materials that could otherwise feed fires. However, recent wildfire severity has required a large portion of the United States Forest Service (USFS) budget to be allocated to suppression efforts each year at the expense of other budget categories, such as fuel treatments. This motivates the importance of using available resources in a way that maximizes social welfare, but it is unclear what allocation is considered optimal by relevant stakeholders. This research investigates the preferences of USFS employees and the public for hazardous fuel treatments. The primary objective of this work is to assess how these two groups would prefer a portion of the USFS wildfire management budget be allocated among fuel reduction activities. A secondary objective is to determine how allocation preferences are affected when budgetary changes are presented as a loss or a gain. To address these questions, surveys were administered to a sample of the public residing in Colorado and Utah, and to employees of the USFS. Respondents were asked to complete a budget allocation exercise as the primary mechanism for assessing their preferences. Ultimately, this research will help inform USFS management decisions by improving our understanding of each group’s preferences, as well as characteristics that may influence these preferences.