In this paper, we investigate homeowner preferences and willingness to pay for wildfire protection programs using a choice experiment with three attributes: risk, loss and cost. Preference heterogeneity among survey respondents was examined using three econometric models and risk preferences were evaluated by comparing willingness to pay for wildfire protection programs against expected monetary losses. The results showed that while nearly all respondents had risk seeking preferences, a small segment of respondents were risk neutral or risk averse. Only respondents who had personal experience with the effects of wildfire consistently made trade-offs among risk, loss and cost and these respondents were willing to pay more for wildfire protection programs than were respondents without prior experience of the effects of wildfire. The degree to which people with prior experience with the effects of wildfire can effectively articulate an economic rationale for investing in wildfire protection to other members of their own or other communities facing the threat of wildfires may influence the overall success of wildfire protection programs.

This study uses a nonmarket valuation method to investigate the recreation values of the San Jacinto Wilderness in southern California. The analysis utilizes survey data from a stated-choice experiment involving backcountry visitors who responded to questions about hypothetical wildfire burn scenarios. Benefits of landscape preservation are derived using a Kuhn-Tucker (KT) demand system. Model results suggest that recreationists are attracted to sites with recent wildfires that can be viewed up-close. For example, recreational welfare estimates increased for sites that were partially affected by different types of wildfires, with the greatest gains being observed for the most recent wildfires. Per person mean seasonal willingness-to-pay varied from a low of $1.23 to a high of $11.05, for total gains ranging from $8,758 to $146,993. However, wildfires that cause trail closures create welfare losses. Seasonal losses per person for complete closure of particular sites range from $3 to $221, for total losses ranging from $29,600 to $2.9 million.

Forest cover gains and losses occur in response to complex environmental and anthropogenic pressures. Yet the impact of forest gains and losses on the provision of ecosystem services differs markedly. Here we investigate the social costs of potential forest carbon change in Australia's intensive agricultural region from 2015 to 2050 using spatial forest cover change and forest carbon models combined with climate and socioeconomic projections. More than 24000 possible scenarios were used to identify the trend and lower and upper bounds of forest cover/carbon change. Net deforestation (3.5 million hectares, Mha) under the lower bound forest cover (LBFC) projection was around one-third less than net reforestation (4.8 Mha) under the upper bound forest cover (UBFC) projection by 2030. However, the CO2 emissions (1.3 Gigatons of CO2, GtCO2) from deforestation were more than double the sequestration (0.5 GtCO2) from reforestation. The social costs (up to 134 billion dollars) of the LBFC were almost five times the benefits of the UBFC (up to 28 billion dollars). The asymmetry decreased over time but persisted to 2050. This shows the markedly different social costs of potential forest carbon losses and gains under global change, evidence which can be useful to policymakers, stakeholders, and practitioners.

No abstract

No abstract