Understanding Public Preferences for Non-Native Species Management and Wildfire Risk Mitigation in Arizona

Abstract

Wildfires in Arizona are increasing in frequency and severity, often fueled by invasive plant species such as buffelgrass. This thesis explores public preferences for wildfire mitigation strategies, particularly invasive species management, using a Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) survey supported by Conditional Logit (CLM) and Random Effects Logit (REL) models. The study focuses on high-risk communities near the Tonto National Forest, using a stakeholder-informed survey design. Results show that residents prioritize tangible safety outcomes over institutional or financial considerations—especially “Protection of Homes,” “High to Medium Risk Reduction,” and “Mechanical Thinning.” These attributes consistently ranked highest in the BWS and were statistically significant in the CLM model. In contrast, respondents expressed strong opposition to utility tax increases, regardless of magnitude. The CLM results confirmed that price was a significant negative predictor of preference, alongside positive preferences for safety-focused attributes. However, the REL model, used to simulate actual voting behavior under cost constraints, revealed that price alone was statistically significant. Non-price attributes, such as the type of administering agency, prevention method, or prioritization goal, had no measurable influence on voting outcomes once cost was introduced. This suggests a divergence between symbolic support for mitigation strategies and willingness to pay—likely driven by the public goods nature of wildfire protection, in which individuals may support collective benefits in principle but prefer to free ride when financial contributions are required. This work suggests that policymakers should consider designing low-cost, high-impact programs and explore non-fee-based or collectively funded mechanisms to align wildfire mitigation strategies with public preferences. Doing so may improve political feasibility and reduce resistance among cost-sensitive or lower-income households.