Environmental and Ecological Statistics

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 291–319 | Cite as

Fighting fire with fire: estimating the efficacy of wildfire mitigation programs using propensity scores



This paper examines the effect wildfire mitigation has on broad-scale wildfire behavior. Each year, hundreds of million of dollars are spent on fire suppression and fuels management applications, yet little is known, quantitatively, of the returns to these programs in terms of their impact on wildfire extent and intensity. This is especially true when considering that wildfire management influences and reacts to several, often times confounding factors, including socioeconomic characteristics, values at risk, heterogeneous landscapes, and climate. Due to the endogenous nature of suppression effort and fuels management intensity and placement with wildfire behavior, traditional regression models may prove inadequate. Instead, I examine the applicability of propensity score matching (PSM) techniques in modeling wildfire. This research makes several significant contributions including: (1) applying techniques developed in labor economics and in epidemiology to evaluate the effects of natural resource policies on landscapes, rather than on individuals; (2) providing a better understanding of the relationship between wildfire mitigation strategies and their influence on broad-scale wildfire patterns; (3) quantifying the returns to suppression and fuels management on wildfire behavior.


Endogeneity Prescribed fire Propensity score Treatment effects Wildfire production functions 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amacher GS, Malik AS, Haight RG (2005) Not getting burned: the importance of fire prevention in forest management. Land Econ 81: 284–302Google Scholar
  2. Behrman JR, Cheng Y, Todd PE (2004) Evaluating preschool programs when length of exposure to the program varies: a nonparametric approach. Rev Econ Stat 86: 108–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellman RE (1961) Adaptive control processes. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Brose P, Wade D (2002) Potential fire behavior in pine flatwood forests following three different fuel reduction techniques. For Ecol Manage 163: 71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butry DT (2006) Estimating the efficacy of wildfire management using propensity scores. Ph.D. Dissertation, North Carolina State University, p 110Google Scholar
  6. Butry DT, Mercer DE, Prestemon JP, Pye JM, Holmes TP (2001) What is the price of catastrophic wildfire?. J Forestry 99: 9–17Google Scholar
  7. Butry DT, Pye JM, Prestemon JP (2002) Prescribed fire in the interface: separating the people from the trees. In: Outcalt KW (ed) Proceedings of the eleventh biennial southern silvicultural research conference. General technical report SRS-S48, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, pp 132–136Google Scholar
  8. Cleaves DA, Martinez J, Haines TK (2000) Influences of prescribed burning activity and costs in the national forest system. General technical report SRS-S37, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest ServiceGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis LS (1965) The economics of wildfire protection with emphasis on fuel break systems. Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, Division of Forestry, Sacramento, State of CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  10. Dehejia RH, Wahba S (1999) Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: reevaluating the evaluation of training programs. J Am Stat Assoc 94: 1053–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dehejia RH, Wahba S (2002) Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Rev Econ Stat 84: 151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EarthInfo, Inc (2002) NCDC first order summary of the day. Data on CDGoogle Scholar
  13. Gorte JK, Gorte RW (1979) Application of economic techniques to fire management: a status review and evaluation. General technical report INT-53, USDA Forest Service, OgdenGoogle Scholar
  14. Greene WH (2000) Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, p 1004Google Scholar
  15. Halvorsen R, Palmquist R (1980) The interpretation of dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations. Am Econ Rev 70: 474–475Google Scholar
  16. Heckman JJ, Hotz VJ (1989) Choosing among alternative nonexperimental methods for estimating the impact of social programs: the case of manpower training. J Am Stat Assoc 84: 862–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heckman JJ, Robb R (1985) Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions. In: Heckman J, Singer B(eds) Longitudinal analysis of labor market data. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 156–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hirano K, Imbens GW (2004) The Propensity score with continuous treatment. Draft of chapter for missing data and Bayesian methods in practice: contributions from Donald Rubin’s statistical family, Forthcoming from WileyGoogle Scholar
  19. Hirsch KG, Podur JJ, Janser RF, McAlpine RS, Martell DL (2004) Productivity of Ontario initial-attack fire crews: results of an expert-judgement elicitation study. Can J For Res 34: 705–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Imai K, van Dyk DA (2004) Causal inference with general treatment regimes: generalizing the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc 99: 854–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Imbens GW (2004) Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. Rev Econ Stat 86: 4–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Imbens GW (2000) The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika 87: 706–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Joffe MM, Rosenbaum PR (1999) Propensity scores. Am J Epidemiol 150: 327–333PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kennard DK (2004) Depth of Burn. Forest Encyclopedia, Available at http://www.forestencyclopedia.net
  25. Kennedy PE (1981) Estimation with correctly interpreted dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations. Am Econ Rev 71: 801Google Scholar
  26. LaLonde R (1986) Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data. Am Econ Rev 76: 604–620Google Scholar
  27. Lu B, Zanutto E, Hornik R, Rosenbaum PR (2001) Matching with dose in an observational study of a media campaign against drug abuse. J Am Stat Assoc 96: 1245–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mercer DE, Prestemon JP, Butry DT, Pye JM (2007) Evaluating alternative prescribed burning policies to reduce net economic damages from wildfire. Am J Agri Econ 89: 63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2002) El Niño-Southern oscillation sea surface temperature measures. Available at <ftp://ftp.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/cpc/wd52dg/data/indices/sstoi.indices>. Accessed by author on October, 2002
  30. Outcalt KW, Wade DD (2004) Fuels management reduces tree mortality from wildfires in Southeastern United States. South J Appl Forestry 28: 28–34Google Scholar
  31. Parks GM (1964) Development and application of a model for suppression of forest fires. Manage Sci 10: 760–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prestemon JP, Butry DT (2005) Time to burn: modeling wildland arson as an autoregressive crime function. Am J Agri Econ 87: 756–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Prestemon JP, Mercer DE, Pye JM, Butry DT, Holmes TP, Abt KL (2001) Economically optimal wildfire intervention regimes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American agricultural economics association, August 5–8, 2001, Chicago, Illinois. 18 pages. Published on the Internet, <http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/pdf_view.pl?paperid=2872>
  34. Prestemon JP, Pye JM, Butry DT, Holmes TP, Mercer DE (2002) Understanding broad scale wildfire risks in a human-dominated landscape. Forest Sci 48: 685–693Google Scholar
  35. Reed WJ (1987) Protecting a forest against fire: optimal protection patterns and harvest policies. Nat Res Model 2: 23–53Google Scholar
  36. Rideout DB, Omi PN (1990) Alternative expressions for the economic theory of forest fire management. Forest Sci 36: 614–624Google Scholar
  37. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70: 41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1985) The bias due to incomplete matching. Biometrics 41: 103–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1985) Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat 39: 33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rubin DB (1990) Formal modes of statistical inference for causal effects. J Stat Plan Inf 25: 279–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rubin DB, Thomas N (2000) Combining propensity score matching with additional adjustments for prognostic covariates. J Am Stat Assoc 95: 573–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith J, Todd P (2005) Does matching overcome lalonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators. J Econ 125: 305–353Google Scholar
  43. Sparhawk WN (1925) The use of liability ratings in planning forest fire protection. J Agri Res 30: 693–762Google Scholar
  44. Stewart S, Radeloff V, Hammer R, Fried J, Holcomb S, McKeefry J (2005) Mapping the wildland urban interface and projecting its growth to 2030. USDA Forest Service, North Central Research StationGoogle Scholar
  45. United States Census Bureau (2004) http://www.census.gov
  46. Wade DD, Brock BL, Brose PH, Grace JB, Hoch GA, Patterson WA, III (2000) Chapter 4: Fire in eastern ecosystems. In: Brown JB, Smith JK (eds) Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. General technical report RMRS-GTR-42-vol2. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, p 257Google Scholar
  47. Winship C, Mare RD (1992) Models for sample selection bias. Ann Rev Soc 18: 327–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yoder J (2004) Playing with fire: endogenous risk in resource management. Am J Agri Eco 86: 933–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of Applied Economics, Building and Fire Research LaboratoryNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations