The public-good nature of benefits of fuel management explains its current undersupply and the consequent wildfire blow. Policies to promote fuel management are thus required. To be cost-effective, they need to be informed by context-specific estimates of forest owners’ willingness-to-accept (WTA) for managing fuel. This study develops a choice-modeling approach to this problem. A survey of forest owners was undertaken in a wildfire-prone parish in Portugal. Respondents were asked about their willingness to subscribe different management contracts. A choice model was estimated and used to predict owners’ WTA for different fuel management commitments, and the marginal cost of reducing burned area in the parish. Estimated WTA amounts depend on owner type and commitment. Active owners demanded lower amounts for adopting silvicultural intervention commitments, and higher for those implying income foregone. The marginal cost of reducing burned area through fuel management increases with area, but it currently is yet smaller than the corresponding marginal benefit. Our results suggest that zero burned area is not an option and optimum fuel management lies beyond the current level. It will be shifted even beyond by targeted (key-spot) fuel management approaches; WTA differences across owners can be used to design context-specific policies that are more cost-effective.