Table 6.
Risk perceptions from study communities
| Risk perceptions | Lower tree mortality–higher amenity communities | Higher tree mortality–lower amenity communities | ANOVA F-scoresd | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frisco | Breckenridge | Dillon | Silverthorne | Vail | Steamboat Springs | Granby | Kremmling | Walden | ||
| Mean values | Mean values | |||||||||
| Forest firea, b | 4.3GW | 4.3W | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.2GKW | 4.6FS2 | 4.5S2 | 4.6BFS2 | 4.58*** |
| Falling treesa,b | 3.6W | 3.5W | 3.7 | 3.5W | 3.6 | 3.5W | 3.7 | 3.8 | 4.0BFS1S2 | 4.16*** |
| Decline in wildlife habitat | 3.7 | 3.6 | 3.9S1 | 3.5DW | 3.8 | 3.6 | 3.8 | 3.7 | 3.9S1 | 2.52* |
| Impact on livestock grazinga,b | 2.3KW | 2.4KW | 2.4KW | 2.4KW | 2.3GKW | 2.7W | 2.8VW | 3.0BDFS1VW | 3.5c | 18.16*** |
| Increased erosion and runoff | 3.8 | 3.6DW | 4.0B | 3.7 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 4.0B | 2.64** |
| Invasive plant species | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 3.6 | 3.8 | 3.9 | 1.92 |
| Loss of forests as an economic resourcea(b) | 3.3KW | 3.3KW | 3.6W | 3.4W | 3.3KW | 3.3KW | 3.7W | 3.8BFS1VW | 4.3c | 14.83*** |
| Loss of scenic/aesthetic quality | 4.3 | 4.2 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 4.0 | 4.3 | 1.74 |
| Loss of tourism/recreation | 3.6 | 3.6S2 | 3.7S2 | 3.5W | 3.7S2 | 3.1BDVW | 3.5W | 3.3W | 3.9GKS1S2 | 5.94*** |
| Loss of community identity | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.7S2 | 3.6S2 | 3.7KS2 | 3.1DS1VW | 3.4W | 3.2VW | 3.9GKS2 | 5.83*** |
| Impact on property valuesa | 3.5W | 3.6S2 | 3.9S2 | 3.6S2 | 3.6 | 3.1BDGKS1W | 3.8S2 | 3.7S2 | 4.0FS2 | 6.69*** |
Means based on 5-pt scale (1 not concerned to 5 extremely concerned). Any superscript codes identified indicates a significant difference between the two communities using post hoc Tukey’s test. Codes for communities: B Breckenridge, D Dillon, F Frisco, S1 Silverthorne, S2 Steamboat Springs, V Vail, G Granby, K Kremmling, W Walden
aSpearman correlation with the biophysical vulnerability indicator is significant at the .05 level ((a)marginally significant at the .1 level)
bSpearman correlation with the amenity index is significant at the .05 level ((b)marginally significant at the .1 level)
cSignificantly different from all other communities
dF-scores obtained using a one-factor ANOVA
* P < .05
** P < .01
*** P < .001