Environmental Management

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 296–310 | Cite as

Wildfire Risk Management on a Landscape with Public and Private Ownership: Who Pays for Protection?

  • Gwenlyn BusbyEmail author
  • Heidi J. Albers


Wildfire, like many natural hazards, affects large landscapes with many landowners and the risk individual owners face depends on both individual and collective protective actions. In this study, we develop a spatially explicit game theoretic model to examine the strategic interaction between landowners’ hazard mitigation decisions on a landscape with public and private ownership. We find that in areas where ownership is mixed, the private landowner performs too little fuel treatment as they “free ride”—capture benefits without incurring the costs—on public protection, while areas with public land only are under-protected. Our central result is that this pattern of fuel treatment comes at a cost to society because public resources focus in areas with mixed ownership, where local residents capture the benefits, and are not available for publicly managed land areas that create benefits for society at large. We also find that policies that encourage public expenditures in areas with mixed ownership, such as the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 and public liability for private values, subsidize the residents who choose to locate in the high-risk areas at the cost of lost natural resource benefits for others.


Fire Game theory Spatially explicit game Natural hazard Hazard mitigation Public goods 


  1. Agee JK, Skinner CN (2005) Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. For Ecol Manag 211:83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albers HJ, Ando AW, Batz M (2008) Equilibrium patterns of land conservation: crowding in/out, agglomeration, and policy. Resour Energy Econ 30(4):492–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amacher GS, Malik AS, Haight RG (2006) Reducing social losses from forest fires. Land Econ 82(3):367–383Google Scholar
  4. Associated Press (AP) (2008) Federal government wins lawsuit over Hayman fire. Accessed online February 24, 2009:
  5. Berry AH, Hesseln H (2004) The effect of the wildland urban interface on prescribed burning costs in the Pacific Northwestern United States. J For 102(6):33–37Google Scholar
  6. Buckley M, Haddad BM (2006) Socially strategic ecological restoration: a game-theoretic analysis. Environ Manag 38(1):48–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cary v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 145 (2007) United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Decided: January 16, 2009. Accessed 24 Feb 2009
  8. Crowley CSL, Malik AS, Amacher GS, Haight RG (2009) Adjacency externalities and forest fire prevention. Land Econ 85(1):162–185Google Scholar
  9. Deeming JE, Burgan RE, Cohen JD (1977) The National Fire Danger Rating System—1978. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Tech. Rep. INT-39, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT, 63 pp [Available from USDA Forest Service-RMRS, 324 25th St., Ogden, UT 84401.]Google Scholar
  10. Figueroa T (2005) Judge dismisses $100 million Cedar Fire lawsuit. North County Times, Monday, November 28, 2005Google Scholar
  11. Finney MA (2001) Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire growth and behavior. For Sci 47(2):219–228Google Scholar
  12. Gill AM, Bradscock RA (1998) Prescribed burning: patterns and STRATEGIES. In: 13th conference on fire and forest meteorology, Fairfax, VA: International Association of Wildland Fire, USA, pp 3–6Google Scholar
  13. Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2008) Wildland Fire Management: interagency budget tool needs further development to fully meet key objectives. Report to the Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate GAO-09-68Google Scholar
  14. Graham RT, Harvey AE, Jain TB, Tonn JR (1999) The effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in western forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR463Google Scholar
  15. Hann WJ, Strohm DJ (2003) Fire regime condition class and associated data for fire and fuels planning: methods and applications. In: USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-29, pp 397–434Google Scholar
  16. Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) (2003) Public Law 108-148, 117 Stat 1887Google Scholar
  17. Healthy Forests Report FY2006 (2007) Healthy Forests and Rangelands. Accessed 6 Mar 2007
  18. Hesseln H (2001) Refinancing and restructuring federal fire management. J For 99:4–8Google Scholar
  19. Hirshleifer J (1983) From weakest link to best shot: the voluntary provision of public goods. Public Choice 41:371–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Konoshima M, Montgomery CA, Albers HJ, Arthur JL (2008) Spatial endogenous fire risk and efficient fuel management and timber harvest. Land Econ 84(3):449–468Google Scholar
  21. Kunreuther H (2000) Insurance as cornerstone for public-private sector partnerships. Nat Hazards Rev 1(2):126–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kunreuther H, Slovic P (1978) Economics, psychology, and protective behavior. Am Econ Rev 68(2):64–69Google Scholar
  23. Laverty L (2003) Congressional field hearing testimony: environmental effects of catastrophic wildfires, March 7, 2003. Accessed 24 Feb 2009
  24. Lewis T, Nickerson D (1989) Self-insurance against natural disasters. J Environ Econ Manag 16:209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McGee TK (2005) Completion of recommended WUI fire mitigation measures within urban households in Edmonton, Canada. Glob Environ Change B 6(3):147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) (2009) Wildland fire statistics. Accessed 25 Feb 2009
  27. Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) (2007) Landowner fire liability. Oregon Department of Forestry in partnership with Oregon Small Woodlands Association, Oregon Forest Resources Institute, and Oregon Forest Industries Council, 4 pp. Accessed 24 Feb 2009
  28. Reddy SD (2000) Examining hazard mitigation within the context of public goods. Environ Manag 25(2):129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ring R (2003) Who should pay when houses burn? High Country News, 26 May 2003, vol 35(10)Google Scholar
  30. Schmidt KM, Menakis JP, Hardy, CC, Hann WJ, Bunnell DL (2002) Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station General Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-87, p 46Google Scholar
  31. Stephens SL, Ruth LW (2005) Federal forest fire policy in the United States. Ecol Appl 15(2):532–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stewart S, Radeloff V, Hammer R, Fried, J, Holcomb S, McKeefry J (2005) Mapping the Wildland Urban Interface and Projecting its Growth to 2030: summary statistics. Accessed 24 Feb 2009
  33. Talberth J, Barrens R, McKee M, Jones M (2006) Averting and insurance decisions in the wildland urban interface: implications of survey and experimental data for wildfire risk policy. Contemp Econ Policy 24(2):203–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. United States Forest Service (USFS) (2004) Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) Wildland Urban (WUI) Interface for North Idaho and Montana, 2004. Accessed 24 Feb 2009
  35. Varian H (2004) System reliability and free riding. Accessed 24 Feb 2009
  36. Yoder J (2008) Liability, regulation, and endogenous risk: the incidence and severity of escaped fires in the United States. J Law Econ 51:297–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yoder J, Tilley M, Engle D, Fuhlendorf S (2003) Economics and prescribed fire law in the United States. Rev Agric Econ 25(1):218–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ForestryVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest Ecosystems and SocietyOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations