Complexity of homeowner wildfire risk mitigation: an integration of hazard theories

Abstract

Each year wildfire affects communities in Canada, resulting in evacuations and, in some cases, loss of homes. Several Canadian wildfire management agencies have initiated mitigation programs aimed at reducing wildfire risk. Successful wildfire mitigation involves both community-level and homeowner action. This paper examines factors that influence wildfire mitigation by homeowners. We draw upon the general hazards and wildfire management literature to develop and test a theoretical model for homeowner wildfire mitigation that includes perceived risk, an evaluation of threat significance and the influence of perceived costs and benefits of mitigation. We used a mail survey to collect data from 1265 residents in six interface communities in the province of Alberta. Results showed a high level of completion for most mitigation activities. A structural equation model provided support for the hypothesis that the evaluation of threat involves weighing the negative effects of mitigation on homeowners’ feelings of connectedness to nature and the cost of mitigation with the positive influences of fear, a sense of responsibility and perceived effectiveness of mitigation. Considering the total effects, threat assessment had the greatest effect on mitigation by homeowners, followed by perceived effectiveness of mitigation in reducing damage and not having financial resources for mitigation.

Wildfire risk mitigation and recreational property owners in Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park-Alberta

“…Although caution must be used in drawing comparisons between studies, these findings are similar to results of a study of Alberta homeowners (n = 1265) that used a very similar methodology and survey questions (McFarlane et al 2011). That homeowner study was conducted in six communities with high wildfire risk, three of which had initiated community wildfire risk-reduction measures.…”

“…To examine the association between mitigation action and other variables, we created a compliance index for these three categories of mitigation. We used an index similar to that used by McFarlane et al (2011) which takes into consideration both completed and intended mitigation action. First, responses to each mitigation action were summed to create a score for the respective mitigation category.…”

“…These do not, however, always translate into taking action. The influence of perceived risk on wildfire mitigation among homeowners varies considerably (McGee 2005, Collins 2009, McFarlane et al 2011. Among the factors that contribute to variation in risk judgements and subsequent mitigation action are the subjective nature of perceived risk, the spatial scale and time frame of the assessment, and attention to what is at risk (McCaffrey 2008).…”

“…In the case of wildfire, people's perception of experts and firefighters has been shown to affect risk judgements and mitigation action. Because of the success of fire suppression in preventing wildfires from affecting communities, people have developed a trust in firefighters to save their homes, thereby reducing their sense of risk and of the need to take action (Cohn et al 2008, McFarlane et al 2011.…”

“…Some wildfire mitigation actions are expensive or require specialized equipment. For example, the cost of vegetation management (e.g., removing trees) and structural changes (e.g., replacing a roof), and lack of necessary skills and physical ability to undertake these actions, may constrain wildfire mitigation (Collins 2009, Faulkner et al 2009, McFarlane et al 2011.…”