Identifying policy target groups with qualitative and quantitative methods: the case of wildfire risk on nonindustrial private forest lands

This article identifies four types of nonindustrial private forest owners with different motivations for managing forestland in Oregon's fire-prone areas and different suitabilities for wildfire risk reduction policy approaches: “Commodity managers” (27% of owners, 40% of ownership area) are motivated to harvest and sell timber for income, to protect assets, and to perpetuate a family legacy of forestry. Policies that reinvigorate markets for small-diameter wood products could motivate these owners with markets that provide economic justification for reducing fuel. “Amenity managers” (21% of owners, 10% of ownership area) actively reduce fuel out of a desire to protect things of sentimental and amenity value: their homes and the forests that define the places where they live. Amenity managers could benefit from technical and financial assistance programs, coupled with symbolic campaigns that cast wildfire risk as a threat to home, habitat, scenery and privacy. “Recreational managers” (27% of owners, 26% of ownership area) are absentee owners who manage for amenities and are not very likely to reduce hazardous fuel. Providing public incentives through third-party contractors or consultants who can help recreational managers plan future fuel reduction may increase the frequency and scale of their treatments. Complimenting incentives with symbolic campaigns about risks of wildfire as risk to recreational opportunities, scenery and privacy may also be effective. “Passive managers” (25% of owners, 24% of ownership area) are absentee owners of large parcels who hold few salient management goals and are not very concerned about wildfire. This group of owners is unlikely to reduce fuel on their own or respond to incentives. More research is needed to determine whether the forest conditions on the lands owned by this group are hazardous, and if so, why owners are not concerned.