Advertisement

Contingent Valuation of Fuel Hazard Reduction Treatments

  • John B. Loomis
  • Armando González-Cabán
Part of the Forestry Sciences book series (FOSC, volume 79)

Increasing numbers of wildfires each summer has brought forward legislative and administrative proposals for expanding prescribed burning and mechanical fuel reduction programs. A policy of accelerating the amount of land to be mechanically thinned or prescribed burned is not without opposition. Prescribed burning can generate significant quantities of smoke that affects visibility and aggravates health problems for people with respiratory conditions. Prior initiatives to increase prescribed burning in states such as Florida and Washington have often been limited by citizen opposition due to smoke and health effects. The prescribed burning program is also expensive and costs as much as $250 per acre or more in some parts of the country. Thus, a policy relevant issue is whether the benefits of fuel reduction policies exceed the costs.

This chapter presents a stated preference technique for estimating the public benefits of reducing wildfires to residents of California, Florida, and Montana from two alternative fuel reduction programs: prescribed burning and mechanical fuels reduction. The two wildfire fuels reduction programs under study are quite relevant to people living in California, Florida and Montana because of these states’ frequent wildfires1. The methodological approach demonstrated here has broad applicability to other fire prone areas of public land as well.

Keywords

Public Good Contingent Valuation Prescribe Burning Contingent Valuation Method Fuel Reduction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. Portney, E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. U. S. Department of Commerce, Federal Register 58(10):4602-4614.Google Scholar
  2. Hanemann, M. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67(3):332-341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hanemann, M. 1989. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: Reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71(4):1057-1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Holmes, T., and W. Adamowicz. 2003. Attribute-based methods. In: A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, P. Champ, K. Boyle, and T. Brown (eds. ). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  5. Loomis, J., and A. González-Cabán. 1997. Comparing the economic value of reducing fire risk to spotted owl habitat in California and Oregon. Forest Science 43(4):473-482.Google Scholar
  6. Loomis, J., and A. González-Cabán. 1998. A willingness-to-pay function for protecting acres of spotted owl habitat from fire. Ecological Economics 25:315-322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Loomis, J., L. Bair, and A. González-Cabán. 2002. Language related differences in a contingent valuation study: English versus Spanish. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(4):1091-1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Loomis, J., A. González-Cabán, and J. Englin. 2001. Testing for differential effects of forest fires on hiking and mountain biking demand and benefits. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26(2):508-522.Google Scholar
  9. Mitchell, R., and R. Carson. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington, D. C. : Resources for the Future. 463 p.Google Scholar
  10. Park, T., J. Loomis, and M. Creel. 1991. Confidence intervals for evaluating benefit estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Economics 67 (1):64-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Talberth, J., R. Berrens, M. McKee, and M. Jones. 2006. Averting and insurance decisions in wildland-urban interface: Implications of survey and experimental data for wildfire risk reduction policy. Contemporary Economic Policy 24(2):203-223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Winter, G., and J. Fried. 2001. Estimating contingent values for protection from wildland fire using a two-stage decision framework. Forest Science 47(3):349-360.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • John B. Loomis
    • 1
  • Armando González-Cabán
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsColorado State UniversityFort Collins
  2. 2.Pacific Southwest Research StationUnited States Forest ServiceRiverside

Personalised recommendations