Fire & Economics
View report.
Almost half of the full community costs of wildfire are paid for at the local level, including homeowners, businesses, and government agencies. Many of these costs are due to long-term damages to community and environmental services, such as landscape rehabilitation, lost business and tax revenues, and property and infrastructure repairs. By comparison, our analysis suggests suppression costs comprise around nine percent of total wildfire costs. The remaining costs include short-term expenses, or those costs occurring within the first six months—and long-term damages accruing during many months and years following a wildfire. Communities at risk to wildfires can reduce wildfire impacts and associated costs through land use planning.
View report.
The importance of cost effective fuel treatment programs has appeared consistently in federal directives (FLAME ACT, National Cohesive Strategy, U.S Department of Interior Office of Policy Analysis) as a priority. Implementing cost effective fuel treatment programs requires a spatially explicit and integrated systematic approach that can be applied to the landscape, program and national scale. The objectives of this study were three-fold. The first objective was to generate cost effective fuel treatment programs at the landscape scale and their impact on the preparedness program. The second objective was to quantify the interrelationship between the fuel program and preparedness program by budget alternative at a landscape scale to provide mangers with the fuel and preparedness budgets that achieve the highest return on investment for any combination of budgets. The third objective was to form cost effective national and regional fuel treatment programs based on the data collected from the landscape analysis that considers national and regional policies.
View report.
While news headlines were quick to capture the “cost” of firefighting, suppression represents only a fraction of the true cost of wildfire. There are huge impacts to air quality and health, school athletics, travel and tourism, employment and the economy, transportation, and iconic Oregon economic sectors such as the state’s wine and timber industries. No single state agency is charged with documenting these costs, so the Oregon Forest Resources Institute set out to gather what information is currently available, from media reports, individual interviews and hard-nosed research.
View report.
Spatial wildfire suppression costs regressions have been re-estimated at a more disaggregated level for the nine Geographic Area Coordination Center (GACC’s) regions using five years of data for fires involving National Forests. Results of these revised regression determined that only in the California GACCs did mechanical fuel treatment reduce wildfire suppression costs. However, the results of our second major hypothesis tests that fuel treatments, by making wildfires less damaging and easier to control, may reduce property damages (i.e., structures—barns, out buildings, etc. and residences lost) seems to be confirmed for acres treated with prescribed burning. In four out of the seven GACC regions prescribed burning lowered the number of structures damaged by wildfire. The results for mechanical fuel treatment were more mixed, with a significant negative effect in reducing property damages in two of the three regions with a significant coefficient on mechanical fuel treatment. These results are consistent with past research that suggests that for fuel treatments to reduce wildfire suppression costs it may be necessary to substantially increase the amount of area treated.
View report.
This project quantifies the effects of fuel treatments and previously burned areas on daily fire management costs, as well as summarizes recent encounter rates between fuel treatments and
wildland fires across the conterminous United States. Unexpectedly, we found that encounters with fuel treatments and previous fires increase daily fire management costs. Managers working in the field validated the concept suggesting that fuel treatments and previous fires are often areas where suppression efforts are applied in greater force.
View forum report.
This document includes scientist contributions and group recommendations that came from the Great Basin Wildfire Forum held at the University of Nevada in September of 2007. In the first section, the editors provide background and overview of the major issues of the Great Basin as they relate to the wildfire forum discussions. The next section is an edited version of the individual contributions of the scientists based on their oral presentations and written contributions.
View article.
This study provides the first time series estimates of PM2.5 smoke costs across mortality and several morbidity measures for the Western US over 2005–2015. This time period includes smoke from several megafires and includes years of record-breaking acres burned. Smoke costs are estimated using a benefits transfer protocol developed for contexts when original health data are not available. The novelty of our protocol is that it synthesizes the literature on choices faced by researchers when conducting a smoke cost benefit transfer. On average, wildfire smoke in the Western US creates $165 million in annual morbidity and mortality health costs.
View report
This report evaluated how changes in climate in the United States would lead to changes by the middle and the end of the current century in annual spending to suppress wildfires on USDA Forest Service (FS) and Department of the Interior (DOI) managed lands.
To do this, researchers developed a two-stage model. In the first stage, we analyzed the historical relationships between area burned on FS and DOI lands and maximum daily temperatures and other variables. In the second stage, we analyzed historical relationships between area burned and suppression spending.
Then, using projections of climate obtained from general circulation models, we projected area burned, and used this projection in our second stage model to project spending on suppression. All spending projections were done with constant 2014 dollars. We made projections for mid-century (2041-2059) and late-century (2081-2099). Uncertainty in the area burned and suppression spending was quantified using Monte Carlo simulation methods, incorporating parametric uncertainty from the two stage models and climate uncertainty from the alternative climate projections.
Results show that median area burned on DOI lands is projected to increase, compared to the amount observed between 1995 and 2013, by 99% by mid-century and by 189% by late-century. For FS lands, the increases are projected to be 123% by mid-century and 221%, respectively. Given such changes in area burned, DOI spending is projected to increase by 45% by mid-century and by 72% by late-century. For the FS, annual spending is projected to rise by 117% and 192%, respectively. Such changes would entail an increase in dollars spent in total across both agencies from a historical average of $1.33 billion to a projected $2.63 billion in mid-century and $3.47 billion by late-century.
View report.
This report documents the growth over the past 20 years of the portion of the Forest Service’s budget that is dedicated to fire, and the debilitating impact those rising costs are having on the recreation, restoration, planning, and other activities of the Forest Service.
As more and more of the agency’s resources are spent each year to provide the firefighters, aircraft, and other assets necessary to protect lives, property, and natural resources from catastrophic wildfires, fewer and fewer funds and resources are available to support other agency work—including the very programs and restoration projects that reduce the fire threat.
View review.
In this paper, authors review state-of-the-art methods and models that can be used to evaluate ranch-level decisions and land-use policy impacts.