The ongoing expansion of human populations into wildland areas dominated by flammable vegetation, and the concomitant increased frequency of uncontrolled wildfires that result in losses of property and human lives, has raised new questions about the optimal level of fire protection. The morphing of the problem conception from minimizing costs plus losses of natural resources to responding to the concerns of people whose homes are at risk has stimulated fire protection planners to account for potential changes in people's well-being beyond what is reflected by insured value. Knowing the perceived value of an increase in collective (agency-provided) fire protection that achieves a risk reduction target can contribute much to policy debates on the restructuring and funding of fire protection infrastructure and fuel management. To evaluate the utility of contingent valuation for assessing such risk reduction value, the value of collective fire protection at the wildland-urban interface was assessed for residents of a Michigan jack pine forest. Seventy-five percent of the 265 residents interviewed chose to participate in a hypothetical market for a 50% reduction in risk and, on average, were willing to pay over $57 a year for such risk reduction. Results were consistent with a two-stage decision model: (1) participation in the hypothetical market for risk reduction, and (2) how much the risk reduction is worth. Homeowner risk perception and objectively assessed risk both influenced the probability of market participation. For market participants, willingness to pay was related to property value and household income, suggesting that value at risk and ability to pay weigh heavily in this decision.