Table 41: Long-term national benefits and costs of the National WUI Guide

We further assume that low-, moderate-, and high-hazard areas of Figure 6A account for 40%, 40%, and 20% of Canada’s WUI population (60% of the nation’s population of 38 million people and 15 million households). Table 41 presents an estimate of total national costs and benefits, on a provisional order-of-magnitude basis. Figures are rounded to reduce the appearance of excessive accuracy. Tax savings are already included in the total monetary benefit and are not double counted but are shown separately as well. Again, Figure 19 shows that 75% to 80% of the benefits are monetary, and the rest is associated with life safety.

Table 41. Long-term national benefits and costs of the National WUI Guide

High hazard Moderate hazard Low hazard National (a)

Households in WUI (million) Household cost ($ million) Municipal and utility cost ($ million) 0.9 1.8 1.8 4.5

$10,000 $20,000 $18,000 $48,000

$15,000 $31,000 $31,000 $77,000

Benefit ($ million) $360,000 $103,000 $5,000 $470,000 Benefit-cost ratio 14 2 0.1 4 Avoided deaths 1,800 500 20 2,300 Avoided injuries 6,600 1,900 80 8,600 Avoided PTSD cases 6,600 1,900 80 8,600 Construction jobs 4,100 8,300 6,900 19,000 GST savings ($ million) $300 $80 $4 $380 HST savings ($ million) $500 $150 $8 $660

(a) Totals are rounded to reduce appearance of excessive accuracy.

Importantly, benefits and, therefore, benefit-cost ratios vary in direct proportion to burn rates. It would be practical to calculate burn rates by community and thereby improve the estimates of national benefit.

4.8 Climate change and demand surge

The foregoing analyses all account for climate change using the procedures proposed in Section 3.14. The long-term increase in fire frequency suggests that climate change will produce a 42% increase in losses, and, therefore, in benefits and the benefit-cost ratio, relative to a stationary 2010 climate. As previously noted, the project team adds 10% to account for demand surge. Together, these two factors increase losses and, therefore, benefits and benefit-cost ratio by slightly more than 50%.