Denver Water and the US Forest Service spent over $60 million on forest management to protect Denver’s water supply. Did it work? The answer to this question is a little more complicated and of course, it depends. On the surface the cost-benefit analysis doesn't add up, but recent research shows you don't have to search far before it starts to look like a bargain. A new study from CFRI with lead author Kelly Jones, a professor at Colorado State University, shows us how it depends. The results were published in the Journal of Forest Policy and Economics in a paper titled “Societal benefits from wildfire mitigation activities through payments for watershed services: Insights from Colorado”.
This cost-benefit analysis is one of the first studies to analyze return on investment after work in the forest has actually been completed. In contrast to prospective cost benefit analyses, which are designed to optimize and prioritize areas for future treatment, this retrospective analysis reflects how on-the-ground realities like ability to access high priority forest areas, contractor capability, and varying priorities between partners influence investments in forest treatment for wildfire risk reduction. The research used innovative techniques to model the ecological processes connecting forests and water, combined with economic assessments of potential costs avoided, in order to answer important societal questions. In this episode we dive into the connections between forests and water, break down the technical modeling used to understand these relationships, and explore the important takeaways from this work.
- Denver Water Source Water Protection homepage
- Ecological niches of tree species drive variability in conifer regeneration abundance following fuels treatments