Introduction

The convergence of more frequent, severe wildfires and continued residential growth in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) has heightened community exposure to loss across the American West1,2,3,4. Amenity-rich landscapes—dense forests, steep topography, and remoteness that attract WUI residents—also amplify risks, while regional warming and aridification compound ignition likelihood5,6,7,8. Against this backdrop, social science has matured from descriptive accounts of homeowner awareness to empirically grounded explanations of how perceptions of vulnerability form, how they diverge from objective physical vulnerability, and which household and neighborhood conditions move residents from concern to mitigation action9,10,11,12.

Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) is commonly used as a central framework for explaining wildfire mitigation; it posits that threat appraisals (i.e., the perceived likelihood and severity of a wildfire) and coping appraisals (i.e., the efficacy of responsive behaviors, the capacity to take action, the costs associated with possible protective behaviors) jointly shape protective behavior13,14,15,16. Within WUI contexts, PMT has shown consistent empirical patterns: residents who believe actions work (higher response efficacy), feel capable (higher self-efficacy), and face fewer barriers (lower response costs) are more likely to create defensible space, harden structures, and participate in programs9,17. Layered on top of the personal cognitions outlined by PMT, previous research has documented how perceptions of vulnerability are socially embedded: information from agencies and peers can amplify or dampen perceived vulnerability; fuels on a neighbor’s property create vulnerability interdependence; and local norms signal what is appropriate or expected18,19,20.

Another layer of complexity is added by recent findings suggesting differentiation between how residents within WUIs subjectively perceive vulnerabilities and the objective physical vulnerability of their properties. Studies comparing parcel-level expert assessments with resident beliefs have revealed many homeowners under- or over-estimate exposure and sensitivity relative to professional ratings21,22. Additionally, recent work that pairs rapid assessments (e.g., materials, vegetation continuity, slope, and access) with homeowner surveys highlights the differentiation between assessed and perceived vulnerabilities and the feedbacks between perceived vulnerability and mitigation behaviors22,23. Critically, mitigation decisions are jointly produced by cognitive-social appraisals (e.g., perceived probability and consequences, efficacy, norms) and on-parcel conditions, creating feedbacks in which perceptions drive mitigation, which in turn reshapes perceived vulnerability. Post-fire analysis from the 2020 East Troublesome Fire in Colorado suggested that objective parcel-level vulnerability scores and specific attributes predict home loss and that vulnerability “spills over” across neighboring properties—underscoring both the material stakes of physical vulnerability and the social interdependence of outcomes24. Additionally, behavioral field experiments indicate that homeowners do respond to how information is framed in their social context: personalized messages and social-comparison cues increase hazard-related information-seeking behavior23. In short, the current literature suggests that WUI mitigation behaviors reflect subjective cognitive-social processes that may align with, or diverge from, assessed parcel-level vulnerability.

Mitigation efforts may be most effective when they first diagnose the degree of alignment between residents’ perceived vulnerability and assessed parcel-level hazard. Conceptually distinguishing concordance types (e.g., high-hazard/low-perceived-vulnerability vs. high-hazard/high-perceived-vulnerability) can clarify which audiences might respond to focused communication efforts, vulnerability reduction programs, or incentives-based policy. Because protective behavior is filtered through cognitive-social processes (efficacy, norms, constraints), policy and program interventions may yield the best results when delivered at the neighborhood/community scale. Evaluation approaches that track both perception change and physical condition change may then help adaptively steer resources to places where misalignment persists.

The present study advances the literature, and lays the foundation for more informed policies and programs, by integrating parcel-level hazard assessments with qualitative data on threat and coping appraisals, social norms, and perceived constraints. This mixed-methods design extends PMT-guided work showing feedbacks between perceived vulnerability and parcel-level conditions by elucidating the mechanisms—information sources, neighborhood cues, affordability, and program touchpoints—that move households from awareness to action.

Methodology

Study area

Nordic Valley is an unincorporated community located near the Nordic Valley Ski Resort in Weber County, Utah, USA. It is part of the broader Ogden Valley, situated east of the city of Ogden in the Wasatch Mountains, adjacent to the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (Fig. 1). The Ogden Valley has a population of approximately 8,200 residents and contains around 5,900 housing units, with just over half occupied year-round25. The median household income in the Valley is approximately $94,000, and the average home value is $400,00025. Outdoor recreation serves as the primary economic driver for the region, with the surrounding national forest and several ski resorts offering year-round activities for both residents and visitors.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The Nordic Valley community within the broader Ogden Valley. Note: Figure was created in QGIS 3.40 (https://qgis.org/) by JWS.

Full size image

Sample selection

We obtained parcel records of Nordic Valley from the Weber County Assessor’s office, creating and distributing fliers to 30 randomly sampled properties. From this engagement, 14 residents contacted us via telephone to participate in the project. This sample is not intended to be representative of all WUI communities or the Nordic Valley community. Rather, our sample represents residents interested in wildfire vulnerability and mitigation actions that can be taken to prepare for future wildfires. As an incentive, participating residents were given a PDF document with the Wildfire Hazard Lot Assessment (WHLA) results for their property (detailed below) to assist them in future mitigation efforts.

Research approach

Our research employed two primary data collection methods conducted on residents’ properties: (1) WHLAs and (2) semi-structured interviews accompanied by a property walk and discussion. The first author and a local fire prevention technician conducted the WHLAs, while the semi-structured interviews were conducted solely by the first author.

Wildfire hazard lot assessment

We collaborated with a USDA Forest Service fire prevention technician to adapt a WHLA tool based on existing frameworks from the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands and the Colorado State Forest Service. WHLAs systematically evaluate parcel-level vegetative and structural hazards, producing a measure of the parcel’s overall vulnerability to wildfire ignition and/or damage.

The WHLA (available in its entirety in the supplementary material) consisted of three evaluation components:

  1. 1.

    Lot: Assessed vegetation density and the need for removal or thinning to mitigate wildfire vulnerability.

  2. 2.

    Access: Evaluated the adequacy of roads and driveways for evacuation and firefighting access.

  3. 3.

    Structure: Examined the flammability of structures, including roofing materials, deck placement, and fence proximity.

Semi-structured interviews

We designed a semi-structured interview script guided by PMT. The script included one open-ended question for each dimension of PMT, with additional probes where relevant. Short-answer questions were also included to encourage participants to reflect on wildfire vulnerabilities and provide information on other factors influencing perceptions or mitigation behaviors, such as evacuation experience, attitudes toward prescribed burning, barriers to mitigation, and standard demographic data. The full interview script is provided in the supplemental material. Interviews ranged from 22 to 96 min, with an average length of 46 min. All data collection was conducted following established guidelines and requirements, including informed consent; all methods were approved by the Utah State University Institutional Review Board (Protocol #9440).

Data analysis

Wildfire hazard lot assessment

We calculated the percentages for each binary variable (e.g., “yes” or “no” responses) within the WHLA categories to provide an overview of wildfire hazards on participants’ parcels. Additionally, we classified participants into three hazard-level categories (moderate, high, and extreme) based on their overall WHLA scores and calculated the distribution of residents across these categories.

Semi-structured interviews

Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using an inductive coding and thematic analysis approach26. Thematic analysis involved line-by-line coding of the data to identify common patterns and themes across participants’ responses. This approach facilitated the exploration of the relationships among perceived vulnerability, physical vulnerability, and wildfire mitigation behaviors.

The coding process was iterative. Two authors independently reviewed each interview transcript four times to identify and refine themes. This analysis yielded four first-order themes, which were further refined into detailed second-order themes through re-examination of relevant interview segments. Representative quotes were selected to illustrate each theme.

Wilcoxon rank-sum tests

After independently analyzing the quantitative WHLA data and qualitative interview data, we created a summary table linking WHLA scores with interview themes for each participant. Themes were coded as present (1) or absent (0) for each individual. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were then used to assess whether WHLA scores differed significantly across participants based on the identified themes.

Results

Respondent characteristics and wildfire hazard lot assessments

The characteristics of interviewees are shown in Table 1. Although our sample spanned a broad range of ages and tenures, the modal age of 61–69 and the predominance of homeowners likely shaped how participants framed both vulnerability and responsibility. Older homeowners may be more likely to have referenced long-term stewardship (e.g., annual thinning, chipper use, roof upgrades) and/or mention the absence of recent local wildfire as a reason to downplay personal vulnerabilities. The small number of renters (3 of the 14 interviewees) may have led to an under-representation of codes and themes related to these individuals’ limited agency to modify structures or vegetation. Interview data were evaluated within the context of life-stage, tenure, and ownership contexts.

Table 1 Themes present in each interview along with interviewee’s age, type of residence, and wildfire hazard lot assessment (WHLA) score.
Full size table

The results of the Wildfire Hazard Lot Assessments (WHLAs) are also summarized in Table 1, with detailed results provided in the supplemental material (Table S1). The assessment comprised three main components: lot evaluation, access evaluation, and structure evaluation.

Lot evaluation

The lot evaluation included nine quantitative and three qualitative measures. The majority of parcels (69.2%) required vegetation thinning, and vegetation density was categorized as high on 53.8% of parcels. However, most parcels had a moderate amount of defensible space, with 69.3% having more than 30 feet of clearance around the structure.

Access evaluation

The access evaluation consisted of seven quantitative measures assessing the adequacy of road and driveway width and turn-around capacity for firefighting and evacuation. All parcels met the criteria for adequate road, driveway, and turn-around dimensions.

Structure evaluation

The structure evaluation included ten quantitative and two qualitative measures to assess hazards associated with buildings on the property. All structures had screened vents (≤ ¼ inch) and enclosed eaves. Most parcels had screened chimneys (92.3%) and clean, debris-free gutters (92.3%).

Cumulative WHLA scores

The overall WHLA scores ranged from moderate hazard levels (1–12) to high hazard levels (13–24). The majority of parcels (92.3%) fell into the moderate hazard category, with only 7.7% classified as high hazard. No parcels had WHLA scores exceeding 14, and the mean score across all parcels was 7.9.

Interview results

Our analysis identified four first-order themes, each accompanied by two to five second-order themes, as summarized in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Structure and description of the themes and sub-themes emerging from the qualitative analyses.

Full size image

The first theme, perceptions of wildfire vulnerability, highlighted how residents viewed their vulnerability to wildfire damage in relation to their community. Many participants described how the actions of their neighbors directly influenced their own vulnerability. Related interview data revealed three key sub-themes: the spillover effect, where mitigation efforts (or lack thereof) on one property impacted surrounding properties; the challenges posed by part-time residences, which often resulted in inconsistent mitigation practices across the community; and the reality that some residents mitigate while others do not, creating variability in collective vulnerability reduction.

The second theme focused on the influence of the regional landscape on wildfire vulnerability. Participants frequently referenced their geographic setting, particularly living in proximity to Forest Service land, which posed unique challenges related to managing fire-prone public lands. Additionally, living in the mountains was highlighted as a significant factor, with the rugged, forested terrain contributing to heightened vulnerabilities and difficulties in implementing mitigation measures.

Discussions around previous mitigation efforts constituted the third theme. Participants described various actions they had taken in the past to reduce wildfire vulnerability, which fell into five sub-themes. These included differences in mitigation practices based on residence type, with full-time residents often engaging in more frequent efforts than part-time residents; the importance of aesthetic considerations, where visual appeal was balanced with vulnerability reduction; annual vegetation control as a routine maintenance activity; one-time actions, which included significant but infrequent measures such as removing hazardous trees; and seeking advice, where participants consulted experts or neighbors to inform their strategies.

Finally, the fourth theme centered on planned mitigation efforts and residents’ intentions for future actions. Two sub-themes emerged in this context: continuing to do more of the same, with plans to maintain or expand existing practices, and ensuring that aesthetic considerations remained a priority in future vulnerability reduction measures.

To complement these qualitative findings, we conducted a statistical analysis to examine the relationships between WHLA scores and the themes identified in the interviews. A summary of these analyses is presented here, followed by a detailed exploration of the qualitative results.

Wilcoxon rank-sum tests

A series of Wilcoxon rank-sum tests indicated no significant relationship between WHLA scores and individuals’ perceptions of wildfire vulnerability or their mitigation actions (z ≤ 1.702; p ≥ 0.089; full results are provided in the supplemental material, Table S2). Instead, interviewees frequently attributed their perceptions of wildfire vulnerability and their decisions to mitigate vulnerability to the broader landscape context, including adjacent properties and the wildfire mitigation efforts of others in the community. These findings suggest that parcel-level vulnerability, as measured by WHLA scores, does not play a primary role in shaping residents’ perceptions or mitigation behaviors. Rather, perceived vulnerability and wildfire mitigation efforts appear to be more strongly influenced by the surrounding social and physical environments.

Perceptions of wildfire vulnerability

Participants were asked, “How vulnerable are you to wildfire here?” This open-ended question allowed interviewees to freely express their perceptions of vulnerability without being constrained by specific spatial or temporal scales. Nearly all participants described their vulnerability as “very high” or “exceedingly vulnerable.” One resident shared:

I think we’re pretty vulnerable. I mean Ogden Canyon [has] the Forest Service’s sign that says what your vulnerability is, so you have to know what that is coming into this area. Because you’re coming onto that land which is all around us. We’re at least I think medium to high constantly.

(Female, age 31–40, renter, hazard score = 12, moderate).

Another resident reflected on their high vulnerability with an emotional perspective, indicating reluctance to even think about the likelihood of a wildfire: “I don’t want to think about that sort of thing, but I’d say it’s like 99%” (male, age 31–40, renter, hazard score = 12, moderate).

To explore broader perceptions, participants were also asked, “What about your neighbors?” and “What about your community?” Responses to these questions revealed three major considerations influencing perceptions of geographic vulnerability: the spillover effect, the lack of mitigation by part-time residents, and variability in mitigation behaviors across the community.

Spillover effect

Interviewees frequently expressed that hazards on neighboring properties heightened their own vulnerability to wildfire. Many believed their neighbors’ lack of mitigation contributed directly to the vulnerability level for their own property and the surrounding area.

Sometimes you need the collective to do it. Like this property [pointing out the neighboring property], I feel like because she’s so close to the wild frontier, it would just rip right through here because there’s just so much laying down, there’s dead stuff, it’s uncut. I feel like it has a really high potential to even just be a source of it spreading really fast rather than if it were cleared out. Now I don’t know the person, so I don’t know what her intentions are, but I do think it leaves it at risk. And would I want my neighbor to be at risk so I’m at risk? No. Like I think collectively we have to work together.

(Female, age 31–40, renter, hazard score = 12, moderate).

Another resident emphasized the proximity of hazardous fuels and their neighbors’ properties: “You look at that place and all the brush and the trees, it’s just right up against the house and doesn’t have a chance in hell if a fire started, of not taking the entire house” (male, age 70+, homeowner, hazard score = 3, moderate). This resident also highlighted a broader attitude in Nordic Valley, suggesting complacency due to the absence of recent wildfires:

I would be shocked if a quarter of the people you talked to are concerned about wildfires enough to do anything. If they claim that they’re concerned and they told me that, well why in the hell haven’t you done anything to mitigate that a bit? People just been here for 50, 60 years and nothing’s happened [a wildfire] so why do you think it’s going to happen now, you know, is sort of the attitude.

(Male, age 70+, homeowner, hazard score = 3, moderate).

Part-time residences

Participants frequently expressed frustration with the lack of mitigation by part-time residents and absentee landlords. They identified this as a significant source of community vulnerability:

You know there are so many weekend homes, unoccupied homes, rentals, where people don’t take care of. So the ones that live here full-time are pretty responsible but you know. Landlords that rent out they don’t really seem to care too much. You can tell by how overgrown everything is.

(Female, age 61–69, homeowner, hazard score = 7, moderate).

One interviewee distinguished between part-time residents who take responsibility for their properties and those who neglect them, emphasizing the problematic role of rental properties:

I look at that place and that’s waiting to go [be destroyed by a wildfire]. I think they’re irresponsible the landlords that don’t take care of the properties, but the property owners that live up here full time are great. And even the house on the other side of ours - he’s a weekender - but he’s responsible, he owns it and uses it. It’s mostly the rental properties that are the problem.

(Female, age 61–69, homeowner, hazard score = 7, moderate).

Renters themselves acknowledged this dynamic, with one noting:

There’s a lot of part timers in Nordic Valley so I think that’s part of the reason a lot of things don’t get taken care of. Or renters, ‘cause I don’t care as a renter. But should they be forced to be maintained a little bit? I think so.

(Female, age 31–40, renter, hazard score = 12, moderate).

Some residents mitigate, some do not

Regardless of residence type, there was significant variation in wildfire mitigation behaviors across the community. One resident described visibly unmitigated properties: “You drive through some where you can’t see the houses because of all the stuff in front of them. I can’t imagine living in a place like that” (male, age 70+, homeowner, hazard score = 10, moderate). Another participant recalled a conversation with firefighters, highlighting the lack of action by some residents and the consequences for their properties:

And they [firefighters] said if you haven’t made an effort to cut trees away from the house and keep everything up [we] will not make an effort to save your house… We’d just let it burn. And most of the houses up here are that way, they’re all gonna be gone. Because nobody does anything. You know they have trees right next to the house and they’re all just little wooden shacks.

(Male, age 70+, homeowner, hazard score = 10, moderate).

Influence of the regional landscape

Another first-order theme that emerged was the influence of geography on residents’ perceptions of wildfire vulnerability. Interviewees highlighted two key aspects of the regional landscape that shaped their sense of vulnerability: living near or adjacent to the national forest and living in the mountains.

Living in proximity to a National forest

One interviewee discussed how living adjacent to the national forest can increase the area’s overall wildfire vulnerability by noting, “I think we’re hugely vulnerable because it’s all forest above us. Even if it came over the Ogden mountains I think we’d be in trouble. It would just race through” (female, age 31–40, renter, hazard score = 12, moderate). However, the same resident also pointed out that living near the forest could offer some protective measures, such as the potential for fire management infrastructure:

Behind their house [pointing out the neighboring property] is the Forest Service land, there is a fire road above so that’s nice to know that you know they should be able to build a fire break or something up there.

(Female, age 31–40, renter, hazard score = 12, moderate).

Another resident emphasized the interplay of flammable vegetation, structures, and terrain, illustrating how these elements combine to increase wildfire vulnerability:

The more people we’ve got around here the more risk there is. And I live up the hill and fire climbs hills for the most part… The higher you are and the tighter you are, and we’re in it up here where we have that risk.

(Male, age 61–69, homeowner, hazard score = 8, moderate).

Living ‘In’ the mountains

In addition to proximity to the forest, interviewees felt that living in the mountains inherently increased their vulnerability to wildfire compared to those residing in urban or lower-altitude areas. One resident explained: “We’re in the mountains so we’re at risk for it, like we just have that by virtue of our location, we’re at a higher risk than someone who’s at a different location” (female, age 31–40, renter, hazard score = 12, moderate). This participant also highlighted the responsibility that comes with living in a high-vulnerability area, arguing for restrictions on recreational activities that could exacerbate fire danger:

Well I think you have to accept that if you live in an area that’s at risk then you need to own up to your part in that risk… If you live in a mountainous area and you are not allowed to have campfires or fireworks so be it, because I don’t really care. I don’t want my house to burn down.

(Female, age 31–40, renter, hazard score = 12, moderate).

Reported (prior) wildfire mitigation

Residents were asked to describe wildfire mitigation actions they had undertaken in the past year and any plans for the upcoming year. Key themes emerged related to differences by resident type, aesthetic considerations, ongoing vegetation control, one-time actions, and seeking advice.

Differences by resident type

Residents described Nordic Valley as a “mixed residence” neighborhood, with a blend of full-time residents, part-time residents (e.g., vacation homeowners), and weekenders (those visiting only on weekends). One interviewee highlighted a community-wide chipping program and her husband’s participation on the property where they were building a house. She noted:

On our property my husband has and is currently still hauling out all of the trees that we had ripped out to put our home on our lot. We learned every year that the Forest Service and Fire Department of Weber County does provide a service that if landowners haul their own wood debris and put it on the corner of the property, then at some point during the summer they come and chip it for free.

(Female, age 31–40, renter, hazard score = 12, moderate).

In contrast, the same resident described minimal efforts on the rental property where they currently lived, focusing instead on mitigating vulnerability on their future home: “We’ve cut back what we maintain, like just the area we kind of play on and where the kids walk and stuff. But other than that, we don’t really care cause it’s not ours.”

Aesthetic considerations

Many residents wrestled with balancing a desire to maintain the natural beauty of their properties with the need to mitigate wildfire vulnerabilities. One participant described their approach:

We’re trying to leave it pretty natural, but we want it cleared out without debris on the ground and dead things. I’d rather cut down a dead bush than just let it sit there and do nothing and be that fire hazard to me.

(Female, age 31–40, renter, hazard score = 12, moderate).

Another resident expressed initial reluctance to cut down trees but noted a shift in perspective: “Well we cut a few trees down and we tried to clear them out. I was really against it but I’m actually kind of changing my mind” (male, age 61–69, homeowner, hazard score = 9, moderate). Others described the emotional attachment to trees they had planted, acknowledging the difficult tradeoffs involved in mitigation efforts: “We’ve limbed up trees, we’ve cut down trees. I’m struggling with a couple of beauties that we planted that have gotten to be massive” (male, age 61–69, homeowner, hazard score = 8, moderate). This resident detailed extensive mitigation actions on their property:

I do brush removal at least once a year. I drag the biggest chipper you can rent up here and we just make massive amounts of mulch… Mulching, limbing stuff up, try and pick up downed stuff close to the house, I don’t leave it… I like it for wildlife, but around the house try to do those three things. And then obviously I irrigate the grass and try to not keep anything under the deck which I know violate more than I should, but there used to be really nothing under the deck. Certainly no propane tanks.

(Male, age 61–69, homeowner, hazard score = 8, moderate).

Annual vegetation control

Many residents emphasized that vegetation control is an ongoing process, repeated multiple times a year. One participant explained:

In spring, we start around the landscaping areas [and] I’ll go around and do it again in the fall just to try and mitigate how much I have to do next spring. I realize how fast they grew back in some areas I don’t do now. But we try and keep it pushed back as far as possible. We do that every fall, it’s an ongoing process. So we cut around and extend the lawn area. Anything that’s close by the house we would trim all of that back too.

(Female, age 61–69, homeowner, hazard score = 14, high).

Another resident described significant efforts to reduce dense vegetation, including cutting down over 150 trees since moving in: “I have cut down well over 150 trees since we’ve been here. We just identified eight more trees that we’re going to cut down. We’re just going to get rid of a lot of fuel around the house” (male, age 70+, homeowner, hazard score = 3, moderate).

One-time actions

Several residents discussed one-time mitigation efforts to significantly reduce their vulnerability. One participant shared:

This place was a jungle when we moved in. I mean truly you couldn’t see the house in front of the trees. All of the xeriscaping, we’ve taken down large pines that were planted too close to the house. We’ve trimmed brush. We tried to trim the trees up you know 5–6 feet. Cut down the dead trees, we’re working on removing all of the dead. We keep the grasses cut down.

(Female, age 61–69, homeowner, hazard score = 7).

Others described structural improvements, such as replacing wood shake shingles with fire-resistant materials:

I took all those shake shingles off and I split them up and that’s what I use as kindling to start our fires in the time. And it cost me a fortune but I put a metal roof on… When we got here it was plywood siding clear around the house. And so we have plastic that’s supposed to be fire resistant on all sides of the house.

(Male, age 70+, homeowner, hazard score = 3, moderate).

Seeking advice

Some residents described consulting with Forest Service professionals for property assessments and mitigation recommendations. One participant shared:

I’ve had the Forest Service come out and walk the property and [they] told me I need to push back things and inspired a lot of the work that we did. We’ve done some of the specific areas where I was reluctant to take things down.

(Male, age 61–69, homeowner, hazard score = 8, moderate).

Another participant highlighted how Forest Service recommendations had shaped their ongoing efforts, noting:

We are cutting down trees, getting the trees further away from the house, only leaving a few [that] they recommended. Because this is big, big fire danger where we live. Even our property and I’ve been doing a lot already to cut down trees but I have a hard time keeping up with it. I had a company here last week to cut some trees down. I got this big Masonry stove that heats the whole area here and I’m using all that wood from my property for firewood.

(Male, age 70+, homeowner, hazard score = 10, moderate).

Intended (future) mitigation

Residents were asked to describe the wildfire mitigation actions they planned to undertake in the upcoming year before the fire season. Two primary themes emerged: continuing current practices (“more of the same”) and considering aesthetic tradeoffs in mitigation efforts.

More of the same

Many residents who were already actively engaged in wildfire mitigation expressed plans to continue their current efforts. These actions primarily involved thinning vegetation near their homes and establishing defensible space. One resident, anticipating the inevitability of a wildfire in Nordic Valley, described their intent to create a safer landscape:

I’m nowhere near done getting rid of the oak trees and thinning out. I’m just gonna continue to get it out and clear the place out to get a little breathing room and hopefully when the fire does come, with the ladder fuel taken away, it can just go along the ground and sort of forget the trees for a while.

(Male, age 70+, homeowner, hazard score = 3, moderate).

Another resident emphasized the time-intensive nature of these mitigation efforts, acknowledging that achieving their goals would take years: “Finish thinning out the trees which would be a lot of work, it’s going to take us several years” (male, age 31–40, renter, hazard score = 12, moderate).

Aesthetic considerations

Some residents highlighted the interplay between wildfire mitigation and the aesthetic or functional design of their properties. For instance, a resident building a new home in Nordic Valley described incorporating firebreaks and defensible space, though not explicitly as part of wildfire mitigation. She explained: “There will be some boulders on it but it’s not because we’re like ‘let’s put this in as a fire break’. I mean we made sure our trees are not close to the house cause that’s a requirement anyway” (female, age 31–40, renter, hazard score = 12, moderate).

In contrast, another resident with a smaller parcel reflected on the difficult tradeoffs between maintaining the trees they valued and reducing wildfire vulnerability. To offset the hazards posed by their trees, they planned to replace their asphalt shingles with a metal roof:

We’re planning to re-roof and we’re going to go to a metal roof instead of asphalt shingles. Like these trees I love them but they’re touching my house now. If I do that [remove the trees] I wouldn’t have any trees left, my property is like 150 feet wide. I don’t know if I’m ever willing to do that. So I guess you decide what you can take as a risk.

(Male, age 61–69, homeowner, hazard score = 9, moderate).

Discussion

How the WHLAs and interviews complement each other

Our mixed-methods design allows us to compare the physical vulnerability of residents’ parcels (as captured by WHLAs) with what these individuals think and do (as captured by interviews). Quantitatively, WHLA scores clustered in the moderate range, with little dispersion at the high end and no extreme scores; Wilcoxon rank-sum tests did not reveal significant associations between WHLA scores and coded interview themes. Qualitatively, participants emphasized neighborhood spillovers, part-time residence patterns, and landscape setting (e.g., adjacency to national forest, being “in the mountains”) as central to how they perceived vulnerability and chose mitigation actions.

Taken together, these results are more complementary than contradictory. The interviews help explain why WHLA scores did not line up neatly with perceptions and behaviors: salient social and landscape cues (neighbors’ fuels, absentee/seasonal ownership, aesthetics, and access) appear to dominate decision making even when structural conditions are not especially hazardous. At the same time, the WHLA data validate that most assessed parcels had several “good practice” features (e.g., screened vents, enclosed eaves) and adequate access conditions, which may reduce the salience of parcel-specific deficits and shift residents’ attention toward vulnerabilities beyond their property line. The two strands also substantiate one another: interview narratives of a “hazard mosaic” (well-mitigated homes interspersed with less-mitigated parcels) align with WHLA evidence of variable lot conditions (e.g., vegetation density and thinning needs), while the statistically null WHLA–theme associations underscore that mitigation choices are not a simple function of a parcel’s score but of how residents interpret vulnerability through social norms, perceived efficacy, and constraints.

In short, the WHLA findings situate objective wildfire vulnerability baseline (mostly moderate, with discrete improvement opportunities), whereas the interviews show how socially and physically embedded appraisals can amplify or attenuate action regardless of that baseline. The coherence of these patterns strengthens confidence in the mixed-methods inference that the social and physical environment—not just on-parcel physical vulnerability—shapes perceived vulnerability and mitigation decisions.

The social and physical environment drives perceptions of vulnerability

Residents expressed frustration at being unable to control their neighbors’ mitigation efforts. For example, two participants described nearby homes with dense, overgrown vegetation that would have ranked high on a WHLA. This lack of action from neighbors led some residents to reduce their own mitigation efforts, reflecting a fatalistic attitude that individual actions would not significantly impact the community’s overall vulnerability. Others felt that their neighbors’ mitigation efforts were sufficient to reduce their own perceived vulnerability.

This dynamic underscores the existence of a “hazard mosaic” within Nordic Valley, where individual parcels exhibit varying levels of hazard mitigation depending on the property owner’s engagement. Meticulously maintained properties are interspersed with others where little to no mitigation has been undertaken. This mosaic complicates wildfire management and increases the likelihood that well-maintained parcels could ignite due to fuel or embers from less-mitigated neighboring properties.

Residents frequently balanced their desire for a wildland/mountain aesthetic with their mitigation goals, influencing the extent of wildfire vulnerability reduction efforts. For some, this tradeoff limited the changes they were willing to make on their properties, thereby contributing to the community’s overall hazard mosaic. This variability in landscape management creates challenges for firefighters, who may struggle to save structures in such a heterogeneous environment.

Motivations to mitigate wildfire vulnerability vary across resident type

The motivation to mitigate wildfire hazards in Nordic Valley was influenced by residents’ perceptions of vulnerability, which were shaped by both social and environmental surroundings. While previous research has found that long-term residents often feel more attached to their homes and are more motivated to reduce wildfire hazards27, our study did not find a clear relationship between length of residence and mitigation behaviors. Participants exhibited a wide range of residence lengths, from less than one year to 46 years, with no significant association between length of residence and WHLA scores.

However, residence type appeared to play a critical role. Part-time residents, who often use their properties as vacation homes, may be less motivated to mitigate vulnerabilities due to weaker emotional attachment and the desire to prioritize relaxation over property maintenance28,29,30.

Implications for land use planning and mitigation programs

Land use planning as well as mitigation programs can be tuned to the (mis)alignment between perceived and objective parcel-level vulnerability and to the cognitive-social pathways that shape protective behavior in a variety of ways.

Pathway 1 – right message, right person, right time

In places where local organizations have invested in sound social science research, planning and programs can segment audiences by the concordance between assessed parcel hazard and residents’ perceived vulnerability, then pair messages and supports to each segment. This approach can help ensure the most effective information gets to each “type” of resident. In a large field experiment, parcel-level ratings increased information-seeking behavior by roughly 5% points among the highest-vulnerability owners, reduced it by roughly 6 points among lower-vulnerability owners, and increased response in the lowest-vulnerability communities by more than 10 points23. Adding information about the neighborhood average produced another roughly 6-point bump, underscoring the role of norms. These effects align with the idea that communication should be conditioned on baseline vulnerability and local context rather than delivered uniformly.

Pathway 2—make the desirable behavior the normal behavior

Planning and programs can also operate at the neighborhood and/or community scale when possible. Synchronized neighborhood campaigns (e.g., chipper days, homeowner association standards, “Zone 0 sprints”) can be leveraged to convert the important role of the social environment in influencing mitigation behaviors into desirable actions. Planning and programs that occur at the neighborhood and/or community level may especially where absentee or part-time residence patterns complicate individual action24.

Nordic Valley’s chipping program offers an example of a proactive approach that could be improved to enhance its effectiveness. This program, mentioned by 54% of interviewees, allows residents to deposit woody debris at the edge of their properties for chipping and potential reuse. However, some residents noted inconsistencies in the program’s implementation and communication, leading to confusion and missed opportunities for mitigation.

To improve outcomes, the program could encourage coordination among neighbors for debris removal, fostering a more homogeneous level of hazard reduction across the community. Incentives such as priority pickup or financial rewards could be offered for collaborative efforts that address multiple parcels. Previous research has shown that involving established neighborhood organizations can effectively engage residents in wildfire preparedness31,32,33,34. Collaborating with these organizations, along with local fire departments and forestry agencies, could enhance participation and amplify the program’s impact.

Additionally, social marketing strategies could leverage descriptive and injunctive norms to influence behavior. For example, informing residents about neighbors’ mitigation actions (descriptive norms) and promoting a sense of responsibility for reducing wildfire vulnerabilities (injunctive norms) could encourage broader participation. In amenity-rich communities like Nordic Valley, such approaches could reduce the variation in landscape hazards and lower overall community vulnerability.

Pathway 3—use what you have, start where you are, do what you can

Finally, existing rapid assessment programs can be utilized to activate homeowners and to allocate resources. Many respondents in this study indicated they were willing to participate primarily, if not exclusively, for the free WHLA. Additionally, many organizations already collect parcel-level rapid assessment data; these datasets can be repurposed as personalized outreach inputs (unique letters, property dashboards) and used to trigger follow-ups when conditions or seasons change23.

In combination, these recommendations reflect a simple principle: align communication and assistance to how people actually process vulnerability—and to where physical vulnerability is greatest—so that parcel-level improvements, neighborhood spillovers, and homeowner engagement reinforce one another rather than work at cross-purposes.

Limitations

Several factors temper the generalizability and precision of our conclusions. First, the sample size and recruitment methods introduce potential selection bias toward residents who are already attentive to wildfire, and homeowners were over-represented relative to renters. Second, the study is a single-community case; Nordic Valley’s amenity profile, proportion of part-time residents, and existing chipping program may not mirror other WUI contexts. Third, the WHLA instrument—adapted from state/agency tools—captures conditions at a point in time and with several binary indicators; this may miss seasonal dynamics (e.g., debris accumulation), Zone 0 micro-conditions, or maintenance trajectories and can restrict score ranges. Fourth, interviews are subject to self-report and recall biases. Fifth, although we used coding by multiple researchers, qualitative inferences remain interpretive. Finally, the design is cross-sectional; we cannot establish causal ordering among changing parcel conditions, evolving perceptions, and subsequent actions. These limitations do not negate the findings; rather, they highlight where future work should extend this design: larger and more diverse samples, repeated WHLA and interview waves across seasons/years, and enhanced instrumentation and nested designs (respondents and parcels grouped within neighborhoods/communities) are all extensions warranting exploration.

Conclusion

By linking parcel-level assessments with resident interviews, this study suggests mitigation decisions are shaped by socially embedded perceptions that often diverge from objective on-parcel hazard. Policies and programs should therefore target assistance and communication by the (mis)alignment between perceived and assessed vulnerability and act at neighborhood/community scales to leverage the important role of social norms. By coupling on-parcel physical vulnerability assessments with qualitative data detailing how residents think and act, this study offers clear guidance on turning multiple sources of vulnerability information into proactive wildfire risk mitigation efforts. These efforts will be needed with unprecedented urgency and scale across the American West in years to come.