___________________

¹ More information about the MODIS data originating from the Aqua and Terra satellites is available at https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/find-data/near-real-time/firms

in his mind new questions moving beyond just the behavior of individual fires—questions about where, why, and how often fires occur in different environments. This interest led his lab to contribute to the field of pyrogeography by examining the distribution and behavior of fires as if they were living organisms with specific niches and requirements. He explained that fire, like an organism, needs resources, or fuel, including suitable atmospheric conditions and ignition sources, in order to burn. There also must be a way for fire to disperse into the environment and to persist. The lab has worked on ways to quantify and model these factors—including identifying a primary gradient of net primary productivity and other variations that occur along the gradient—that influence fire occurrence and behavior.

Moritz stated that their early model projections highlighted how using a global climate model (GCM), which was common practice at the time, could produce an ensemble set of projections. However, they found that this means did not reveal much. A key takeaway was substantial differences between the potential for warm wet futures versus warm dry futures for fire activity in many regions—but there was significant uncertainty about which scenario was more likely. At broad scales, such as 50-kilometer grid cells and 30-year time windows, human influence did not significantly alter fire patterns. Biophysical climate variables, such as productivity drivers and the length and severity of the fire season, were sufficient to explain fire patterns. He said this suggested that, at this scale, fires were not ignition-limited, despite the known relevance of human activities.

However, as they moved to finer scales, such as one-kilometer grids, human factors became crucial. For instance, predicting fire patterns requires studying variables such as road networks, power line infrastructure, housing, and population density. Ignoring these human factors resulted in poor fire pattern-related predictions. They concluded that wildfire behavior should be viewed as part of a coupled human-natural system. Additionally, they proposed examining the three components of the fire regime triangle, which comprises three categories: (1) ignitions, (2) atmospheric conditions, and (3) resources to burn (e.g., growth rates and structure of vegetation), and incorporating human influences into these three categories. This, they believed, would enable them to better understand and predict different influences on fire patterns.

Moritz noted a review he led, which argued that it is essential to view humans and fire-prone landscapes as a coupled system.² The intersection of fire-prone areas and human habitation occurs at the wildland-urban interface (WUI). Acknowledging that different definitions of WUI exist, he suggested that thinking of it as where and how we live on fire-prone landscapes could lead to a recognition of more tractable problems to address.

Next, Moritz highlighted the importance of human factors in modeling fire behavior. From their models, his team observed a hump-shaped response of fire activity as relates to housing density. This pattern, similar to findings from other studies, showed that as housing density increases, fire ignitions initially rise—but then decrease as landscapes become more fragmented and organized fire suppression efforts increase. This phenomenon aligns with Stephen Pyne’s concept of pyric transitions, but it requires further study. He pointed out that this response appears consistent in California but remains uncertain across different environments due to the gaps in knowledge regarding variations in ecological regions, the impact of community age, socioeconomic status, and other factors. Understanding this phenomenon is crucial, he said, because it reveals a policy lever.

He explained that how and where homes are placed within landscapes not only determines fire exposure but also influences future fire activity. Land use and urban planning can help mitigate future fire risks currently exacerbated by climate change. He suggested this policy lever, with sufficient political will, could be effectively used, though its current application remains underdeveloped.

Integrated Approaches for Wildfire Risk Reduction

An integrated approach for risk reduction, Moritz noted, is required at different scales. At a more granular, more focused, local community level, projects he has worked on focused on three main domains: the landscape domain (land use around and buffering a community); the community domain (e.g., training the people); and the built environment (e.g., roads, water supplies, homes).

___________________

² Moritz, M. A., Batllori, E., Bradstock, R. A., Gill, A. M., Handmer, J., Hessburg, P. F., Leonard, J., McCaffrey, S., Odion, D. C., Schoennagel, T., & Syphard, A. D. (2014). Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature, 515(7525), 58–66.

Sharing his experience in Santa Barbara, he said he learned from firefighters that agricultural belts above Goleta in the west and Carpinteria and Summerland in the east serve as natural buffers, preventing home losses in those areas. The home losses between the agricultural belts in Santa Barbara and Montecito occurred where these buffers were absent. He noted that agricultural lands being rezoned for development—and other buffers, such as golf courses, being decommissioned—can result in increased fire risk in those neighborhoods. He pointed out that not only is there no current way of valuing those buffers, but also policies are not in place to keep, restore, or reestablish new buffers.

The Scale of WUI Decisions

Moritz stressed that what is significant, and matters most, is the scale of decisions. Building codes in California are currently at the scale of individual buildings—but beyond that, there are no design standards or codes. He suggested that broader design standards are needed.

Next, he highlighted the need for a multidisciplinary approach for WUI decisions. Studies are needed on the biophysical side in order better to understand why different construction methods and materials ignite. Also, plant ecology and ecophysiology researchers should explore why certain plants ignite faster under specific moisture stress levels. With the goal of being able to better inform landscape-scale fire management, his lab has researched drought-stressing different species by igniting them in chambers, revealing varying ignition behaviors among plants. There are also questions about vegetation modeling for fire at different scales; debates between those researching dynamic and statistical models, he noted, are essential for modeling fire at different scales. At broader scales, understanding likely atmospheric and climate sciences behavior is crucial. He emphasized the role of economists in valuing ecosystem services such as buffers, including golf courses or agricultural parcels, so they can be preserved as protective measures. With regard to designing sustainable development standards, various fields, including the following, have much to offer: land use and urban planning; landscape architecture; behavioral economics; infrastructure design; and risk.

Moritz went on to point out the lack of sustainable development standards needed to plan and lay out communities in a more survivable manner. Acknowledging the political debates about whether these standards should be mandatory, he noted that a significant issue is the absence of basic design standards. While a universal set of standards might not be feasible, he said that in this area there are many important research questions and needs. Finishing his remarks, Moritz emphasized that we still do not fully understand what drives the flammability and survivability of our homes and communities in WUI landscapes, or how to translate that knowledge into sustainable development standards.

ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE ON CRITICAL GAPS IN THE SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF WILDFIRE CONSEQUENCES

Marian Weber, Manager, Community Recovery, Emergency Management and Climate Readiness, Government of British Columbia

Weber brought an economic perspective to highlight some of the gaps in the social-ecological understanding of wildfire. Starting with data, she cited a 2023 report by the Joint Economic Committee stating that the consequences of wildfire could be disastrous, with estimated damages ranging from $394 billion to $893 billion per year.³ To put this in perspective, she noted that at the low end, this amounts to roughly 6.5 percent of the U.S. federal government’s budget—about $1,176 per person, or around $3,000 per household.⁴ At the high end it is

___________________

³ U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee. (2023, October). Climate-exacerbated wildfires cost the U.S. between $394 to $893 billion each year in economic costs and damages. https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/9220abde-7b60-4d05-ba0a-8cc20df44c7d/jec-report-on-total-costs-of-wildfires.pdf

⁴ United States Census Bureau. (2023, November). Historical households tables. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/households.html; United States Census Bureau. (2023). 2023 National population projections tables: Main series. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2023/demo/popproj/2023-summary-tables.html

more than the U.S. federal government spends on Medicare.⁵ She said these are significant numbers and they are projected to increase.

A 2022 report from the Canadian Climate Institute examined the economic damages brought on by climate change, with natural disasters, including wildfire, being one of the largest contributors.⁶ Currently, in Canada, these damages amount to about $600 CAD per person (which only represents the additional damages due to climate change, not the total damages from fire). She said these costs are expected to increase by 10 to 20 percent per year by the end of the century. By 2050, this could result in 500,000 job losses in Canada—and by the end of the century, up to 2.9 million job losses.⁷

Weber emphasized that these are significant figures, highlighting the need not only to consider the financial burdens of wildfire as it increases in significance on the landscape but also to question whether there are sufficient budgetary resources and political will to address wildfire differently in the future. Weber went on to emphasize that costs would not be distributed evenly and that communities directly experiencing damages would face much higher per-person costs. Underneath these figures lies a complex structure of vulnerability and risk transfer. In order to enable meaningful decisions and behavior changes regarding wildfires, Weber highlighted the need to uncover how risk is transferred, who is cross-subsidizing whom, and how one could trace these financial flows.

The Economic Costs of Wildfire

Weber began by presenting a framework for tracking the economic costs of wildfires. She noted that over the course of the last decade multiple review studies had been conducted, each with its own distinct cost typology, suggesting there is a need for future research to develop a unified typology. Consistency in tracing wildfire economic costs, she said, would allow for more meaningful comparisons of studies conducted at local, regional, and national levels.

She went on to note that damages can be organized into three categories according to where they occur within the sequence of a fire cycle. In the first category there are costs related to fire management. These costs include those costs that incurred prior to the fire event, such as through risk reduction efforts related to community design and preparedness, as well as later, including building back better, together with the costs incurred managing and responding to a fire when it occurs.

The second set of costs involves direct wildfire damages, including not only evacuation expenditures but also costs incurred as a result of the destruction of structures, infrastructure, and natural resources (when forests burn down, they are not available for future harvest). She pointed out that there are also health impacts and the loss of assets and infrastructure that lead to decreased productivity and job losses.

The third category involves indirect losses. These are the long-term macroeconomic impacts of wildfire on community and regional economic development, including loss of jobs and government tax revenues.

Gaps and Uncertainty in Addressing the Costs of Wildfires

Weber outlined priority issues within the three categories of wildfire-related costs outlined above, starting with fire management costs and misaligned incentives in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). She considered whether society would have an issue with individuals who choose to build in the WUI if all associated costs were internalized, including costs of fire management, response, insurance, and disaster assistance.⁸ She highlighted how misaligned incentives within these programs currently transfer risk to the general public, who pay taxes and

___________________

⁵ USAFacts. (2023). How much does the government spend and where does the money go? How does this affect the national debt? https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/budget/

⁶ Canadian Climate Institute. (2022, September). Damage control: Reducing the costs of climate impacts in Canada. https://climateinstitute.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Damage-Control_-EN_0927.pdf

⁷ Canadian Climate Institute. (2022, September). Damage control: Reducing the costs of climate impacts in Canada. https://climateinstitute.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Damage-Control_-EN_0927.pdf

⁸ Bayham, J., Yoder, J. K., Champ, P. A., & Calkin, D. E. (2022). The economics of wildfire in the United States. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 14, 379–401.

bear the costs of indemnifying risks for communities in the WUI, who then potentially overbuild as a result. The optimal level of exposure in the WUI is a critical question, she said, especially considering the needs imposed by other crises such as homelessness.

Addressing the second category, the measurement of direct damages, Weber noted the uncertainty in current estimates. A 2023 report by the U.S. Department of the Interior cited damages ranging by an order of magnitude from “tens to hundreds of billions of dollars per year,”⁹ indicating a significant gap in understanding the potential magnitude of total damages as well as the spatial distribution of damages. Most past estimates have focused on easily measurable aspects like structures and economic activity. She noted that most past estimates have focused on easily measurable aspects, like damages to structures and economic activity. However, she emphasized the importance of including harder-to-measure areas, such as health impacts and ecosystem services. Fire contributes to carbon emissions, impacts water ecosystem services in arid regions, and can exacerbate drought.

Weber also mentioned, using the 2021 wildfires in British Columbia as an example, the association between fire and flooding. These fires were partially blamed for subsequent atmospheric river events, leading to significant disruptions such as highway closures, gas rationing, and shipping route cutoffs. Given that damage estimates often lump together costs from related events such as wildfires and floods—she pondered whether fire should be considered a unique disaster or, rather, viewed within the broader context of ecological and climate change.

Regarding recovery pathways and indirect costs from wildfire damages, the third category, Weber shared that national studies indicate that natural disasters negatively impact national and regional long-term economic growth, leading to decreased or stagnant GDP.¹⁰ However, a recent study from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that at a local level communities often experience a positive long-term economic response, with personal income tending to rise and earnings increasing within eight years of the disaster.¹¹ However, the pathways driving this positive response remain unclear. She stressed the importance of understanding these pathways for the purpose of developing interventions that facilitate community and regional recovery. She noted that communities receiving substantial aid dollars during and after a fire—especially those that are insured—tend to show better short-term economic outcomes. This influx of money can, in the short run, create a positive regional and local response.

At the same time, she raised a critical issue regarding long-term economic impacts. Even in regions benefiting from recovery aid, the benefits are illusory as capital is diverted from other potential investments. Relating a concept known as the “broken window fallacy” she argued that the gains from the creative destruction of aging assets and infrastructure due to wildfire could never result in a net benefit to communities, because the investment comes with an opportunity cost and resources used for recovery could have been allocated elsewhere, potentially yielding greater benefits.

The Future Economy with Wildfire

The future economy with wildfire looks grim. Weber said there will likely be more resources allocated to fire management and related damages; higher tax burdens; lower productivity due to impacts on assets and natural resources; decreased investment; fewer jobs; and a greater burden on vulnerable populations. However, she emphasized that the extent of these consequences, depending on how we adapt, is in our hands and depends on how we adapt.

She highlighted the following—in her view the most important—challenges and opportunities for adaptation:

• Understanding fire and land use constraints: Weber emphasized the need to understand how increasing demands for fire management interact with land use constraints. While humans have evolved with fire, past

___________________

⁹ Crowley, C., Miller, A., Richardson, R., & Malcom, J. (2023). Increasing damages from wildfires warrant investment in wildland fire management (DOI Office of Policy Analysis Report No. R-2023-001). Department of the Interior. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/ppa-report-wildland-fire-econ-review-2023-05-25.pdf

¹⁰ Botzen, W. W., Deschenes, O., & Sanders, M. (2019). The economic impacts of natural disasters: A review of models and empirical studies. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 13(2), 167–188.4.

¹¹ Roth Tran, B., & Wilson, D. J. (2024). The local economic impact of natural disasters (Working Paper No. 2020-34). Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. https://doi.org/10.24148/wp2020-34

societies used landscapes less intensively. With increased economic demands and decisions on the landscape being hardwired—for example, managing ecosystem services through protected areas—she noted that it is necessary to make room for wildfire to rejuvenate ecosystems so they can continue to provide benefits such as nutrient cycling.

• Addressing misaligned development incentives: She noted the importance of sorting out misaligned development incentives and increased exposure as decisions are made about what level of community expansion and exposure is desirable in the WUI. There is a need to address risk transfer and incentives to ensure that desired outcomes are achieved.
• Evaluating costs associated with degraded ecosystems: She mentioned the need to better understand the impacts of fire on ecosystems and the costs of degraded ecosystems, particularly in regions like British Columbia; the relationship between fire, water scarcity, and flooding; and the implications for future economic activity.

Weber closed by explaining that one of the reasons these challenges exist is due to the poor job that has been done tracking and accounting for costs through the system. On this point, she highlighted three opportunities for adaptation:

1. Developing national standards: She stressed the need for a national economic-ecological standard to account for and track fire-related costs and damages. Such an established standard could build on the United Nations Statistical Commission’s system of ecosystem accounting from 2021¹² to better understand and manage these costs.
2. Improving decision-making using baseline socio-economic scenarios: Highlighting the need for better decision-making frameworks, she said it is crucial to find ways to compare the definite current costs with the uncertain future benefits of fire management strategies. Better accounting standards will help, but agreed-upon baseline socio-economic scenarios for future economic growth are necessary to benchmark the impact of investments in wildfire management. Agreed-upon baselines will make the implications of scenario analysis more salient to decision-makers.
3. Long-term community monitoring: She emphasized the need to understand how communities adapt to social and ecological changes. Since fire is just one disruptor among many, she noted that long-term monitoring is essential to tease out its specific impacts.

CRITICAL GAPS RELATED TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF LANDSCAPE FIRE SMOKE

Sarah Henderson, Scientific Director for Environmental Health, British Columbia Centre for Disease Control

Aiming to outline eight critical gaps related to smoke exposure, Henderson discussed landscape fire smoke, drawing particularly from her perspective in public health but also drawing on broader fire conversations.

One major gap, she said, is that while fire and smoke are inherently linked, smoke often gets overlooked in fire discussions. She pointed out that during Stephen Pyne’s informative and thoughtful talk (Chapter 2), every picture he showed in his PowerPoint presentation contained smoke—yet he never mentioned it. She said this highlights the challenge of ensuring smoke is not just seen as a nuisance, but is considered as a central, integral part of fire conversations.

The second gap she mentioned drew attention to how the human impacts of smoke can be as significant as the direct impacts of fire, if not more so. To illustrate, she described how during the 2023 wildfire season in Canada,

___________________

¹² More information about the System of Environmental Economic Accounting Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) is available at https://seea.un.org/ecosystem-accounting

which was unprecedented, 232,000 people were evacuated.¹³ At the same time, while around 30 million people were exposed to wildfire smoke for at least a few days, millions experienced prolonged exposure over weeks or months.¹⁴ While there were some tragic deaths among wildland firefighters, smoke-related deaths across Canada likely numbered in the thousands.¹⁵ She said a recent paper reported that between 2008 and 2018, wildfire smoke in California, paralleling the direct impacts of fire, contributed to an estimated 52,480 to 55,710 premature deaths, with estimated economic costs of $432 billion to $456 billion.¹⁶

The third gap, she said, concerns the ongoing discussion about “good fire” versus “bad fire” impacts on the landscape, underscoring the idea that when it comes to human health there is no such thing as “good smoke.” She stressed that to coexist with fire, and have more “good fire” on the landscape, efforts are needed to ensure that populations are resilient to the impacts of smoke exposure, since smoke is harmful regardless of the fire type.

Highlighting as the fourth gap what she calls the “public health paradox of landscape fire smoke,” she explained that people often mistakenly believe the relationship between smoke levels and healthcare respiratory visits is linear. She pointed out that the concern about smoke follows a linear function in the sense that people do not start talking about it until the air quality impacts are extreme. But the reality is that the relationship is nonlinear. To illustrate, she presented data from British Columbia showing that asthma-related physician visits increase steeply at lower smoke concentrations—and then plateau at higher concentrations.¹⁷ Though most acute impacts are attributable to moderate smoke days, she pointed out that public communication about protective measures from smoke tends to focus only on high-concentration air quality days. Since less than 20 percent of acute impacts are attributable to high-concentration days, she emphasized that most opportunities to protect human health from smoke impacts are missed.

A fifth gap Henderson discussed was the limited nature of the evidence on the long-term health effects of wildfire smoke, despite extensive research on general air pollution and human health. Preliminary findings link wildfire smoke exposure to long-term harm to health, including persistent reductions in lung function, increased cardiovascular disease risk among wildland firefighters, higher incidence of healthcare visits after smoke episodes,¹⁸ higher incidence of subsequent severe acute events (e.g., myocardial infarction), and higher risk of cancer.¹⁹ She noted that these findings align with broader air pollution research, indicating that wildfire smoke might be as risky, if not more so in some cases, as other sources of air pollution.

As a sixth gap, Henderson emphasized that wildfire smoke can be more episodic, complex, and intense than other types of air pollution. Unlike predictable emissions from factories and cars, the amounts of smoke emanating from landscape fires varies greatly and can potentially lead to higher toxicity than is the case with exposure to other sources of air pollution.

This last point also intersects with the seventh critical gap, which relates to understudied developmental periods, such as instances of exposure to smoke in utero or during early childhood, potentially causing lifelong health impacts. Henderson referenced her Ph.D. student Emma Branch’s unpublished research, which has found significant impacts—e.g., stillbirths and extreme-preterm births (under 28 weeks)—during high fire seasons when compared with low fire seasons in British Columbia.

___________________

¹³ Jain, P., Barber, Q. E., Taylor, S., Whitman, E., Acuna, D. C., Boulanger, Y., Chavardès, R. D., Chen, J., Englefield, P., Flannigan, M., Girardin, M. P., Hanes, C. C., Little, J., Morrison, K., Skakun, R. S., Thompson, D. K., Wang, X., & Parisien, M-A. (2024). Canada under fire – drivers and impacts of the record-breaking 2023 wildfire season. ESS Open Archive. http://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.170914412.27504349/v1

¹⁴ Wang, Z., Wang, Z., Zou, Z. Chen, X., Wu, H., Wang, W., Su, H., Li, F., Xu, W., Liu, Z., & Zhu, J. (2024). Severe global environmental issues caused by Canada’s record-breaking wildfires in 2023. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 41, 565–571.

¹⁵ Matz, C. J., Egyed, M., Xi, G., Racine, J., Pavlovic, R., Rittmaster, R., Henderson, S. B., & Stieb, D. M. (2020). Health impact analysis of PM2.5 from wildfire smoke in Canada (2013–2015, 2017–2018). The Science of The Total Environment, 725, 138506.

¹⁶ Connolly, R., Marlier, M. E., Garcia-Gonzales, D. A., Su, J., Bekker, C., Jung, J., Bonilla, E., Burnett, R. T., Zhu, T., & Jerrett, M. (2024). Mortality attributable to PM2.5 from wildland fires in California from 2008 to 2018. Science Advances, 10(23), eadl1252.

¹⁷ Henderson, S. B., Nguyen, P. D. M., Yao, J. A., & Lee, M. J. (2024). The public health paradox of wildfire smoke. BCMJ, 66(3), 93–95.

¹⁸ Cohen, O., Shapira, S., & Furman, E. (2022). Long-term health impacts of wildfire exposure: A retrospective study exploring hospitalization dynamics following the 2016 wave of fires in Israel. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9), 5012.

¹⁹ Korsiak, J., Pinault, L., Christidis, T., Burnett, R. T., Abrahamowicz, M., & Weichenthal, S. (2022). Long-term exposure to wildfires and cancer incidence in Canada: a population-based observational cohort study. The Lancet Planetary Health, 6(5), e400–e409.

The eighth and final gap she discussed concerned the importance of the potential for personal behavior change in building population resilience to landscape fire smoke. Unlike experiences associated with emissions from cars and factories, which can be regulated top-down, with regard to smoke exposure individuals must take specific actions to protect their own health, their families, and their communities. She said the number one strategy is using indoor air cleaning. Other potential strategies include monitoring air quality at personal- and micro-scales; wearing masks where appropriate; reducing outdoor exercise; and minimizing outdoor exposure.

BALANCING WILDFIRE RISK: ECONOMICS, INSURANCE, AND INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES IN THE WUI

Judson Boomhower, Assistant Professor, University of California at San Diego

During the past five years, Boomhower has focused on understanding the economics of wildfire risk in North America. He addressed broad socioeconomic questions arising from the increasing intensity, driven by climate change, of wildfires in recent decades. These include long-standing questions about human relationships with fire; balancing the short-term benefits of fire suppression against the long-term consequences of excluding fire from landscapes; managing housing development in high-hazard areas amidst a housing crisis in states like California; and the political barriers to growth in low-risk urban areas. He also mentioned not only the long-term impacts of wildfire property loss on individuals and communities, but also the challenge of getting homeowners and asset owners in high-hazard areas to understand and respond to wildfire risks by investing in home hardening and defensible space.

Regarding those in the fire-affected sector, Boomhower pointed out newer questions for various agents and actors who had not faced these issues directly before. These questions include how to go about building and operating the electric grid in order to balance ignition prevention, reliable electricity service, and cost management. Boomhower also addressed the need to restructure property insurance markets to handle wildfire peril—which now resembles hurricane and earthquake risks more than the smaller, more manageable wildfires of the past. Lastly, he discussed the need to adapt air quality policy infrastructure. He acknowledged that, as Henderson mentioned, though existing policies had previously been effective in managing air quality in the United States, they were originally designed for stationary industrial pollution sources. For this reason, those policies were not equipped to handle the episodic, unpredictable, naturally occurring wildfire smoke that can travel across continents. He emphasized the challenge associated with trying to adapt instruments like the Clean Air Act to manage this vastly different risk.

Self-Protection Through Home Hardening and Defensible Space

Regarding self-protection, Boomhower emphasized the importance of viewing wildfire property loss as a home ignition problem rather than a wildfire problem. Acknowledging the significant role that mitigation investments play when it comes to increasing the likelihood of structures surviving wildfire exposure, he went on to say that homeowners often struggle to accurately perceive the threat that wildfire poses to their property. Citing studies from the U.S. Forest Service, he mentioned the “Living with Wildfire” survey-informed reports where researchers compare homeowners’ perceptions of their level of risk with expert assessments.²⁰ These studies consistently reveal discrepancies between homeowner and expert assessments.

He noted the importance of community-level spillovers, where one neighbor’s investment in risk mitigation can benefit the surrounding neighbors. In community-scale landscapes, municipal actions and public land management can impact other assets throughout the community. He pointed out that with regard to achieving the appropriate investment level needed for the community, individual decisions are insufficient.

___________________

²⁰ E.g., Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety, National Fire Protection Association^® (NFPA^®) Wildfire and Research Divisions, & Verisk Analytics, Inc. (2023, October). Living with wildfire: Vulnerabilities and readiness across the Western United States. https://ibhs.org/risk-research/living-with-wildfire/

Boomhower highlighted “investment frictions” and how to go about getting to the right level of investment. Mandating investments in risk mitigation, he said, particularly in areas where it makes obvious sense, has proven effective. He cited as an example California’s wildfire building codes with their requirements for roofs, siding, and other features of newly built structures—but, he pointed out, this only applies at the individual structural level. Though there are still open questions about community-scale mitigation, he referenced his research, as well as studies demonstrating the effectiveness of resilience measures. At the same time, he also acknowledged the problem of older homes not being built to current codes—and the challenge associated with ongoing vegetation maintenance, which, unlike structural features, is not a one-time investment. He admitted that there has not been a systematic and effective approach to encouraging homeowners, especially those with older homes, to make necessary investments in vegetation management and other mitigation measures.

Noting his collaboration with Patrick Bayless and other colleagues on an ongoing field experiment in Jackson County, Oregon, he said this project—conducted in collaboration with the Jackson County Fire District Three, the Oregon State Fire Marshal, and J-PAL North America—aims to determine the effectiveness of different interventions when it comes to encouraging high-hazard property owners to make their properties more wildfire resilient. In this experiment, they randomly targeted certain high-hazard property owners, giving them information about steps they could take to enhance their wildfire resilience. Another set of property owners received the same information along with the promise of either $250 or $500 if they successfully passed a Jackson County Fire District Three defensible space inspection. A control group received neither information nor incentives from the researchers. Sharing preliminary results, he noted that merely providing information did very little to prompt action; however, combining information with the promise of even a small financial incentive proved quite effective at motivating property owners to take the necessary steps. This finding, he said, suggests a level of, and basis for, responsiveness that could be harnessed in the future with better interventions.

Boomhower said there is insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of community-scale investments—especially when it comes to the social dynamics required to encourage communities to collaborate on such investments. He emphasized the need to better understand how to motivate communities to work together on these crucial measures.

Highlighting an economic perspective, he then pointed out the extensive list of possible self-protection and home-hardening measures. He stressed that it is an open question as to how far up the marginal cost curve it makes sense to go. Using an economic analogy, he said that some interventions, for example installing mesh screening vents to prevent ember intrusion, are extremely cost-effective and should be implemented universally. However, more expensive measures, such as retrofitting a roof that is not due for replacement in a medium-risk area, might only be justifiable if the value placed on preventing home loss is extremely high.

The difficulty in determining the right balance, Boomhower stated, is due to two main factors. First, quantifying the societal cost of a home burning down is challenging. While there is the cost in dollars associated with rebuilding, there are at the same time significant non-monetary losses associated with suddenly losing one’s home to a wildfire. Second, an alternative to ensuring perfect structural protection would be providing effective financial protection. He highlighted the value tradeoff between striving to prevent any home from burning down and, on the other hand, ensuring that families and communities are financially protected to rebuild and move on if home loss does occur.

Wildfire Challenges for Property Insurance Markets

Boomhower noted that wildfire hazards present significant challenges for insurance markets. The pivotal shift, transforming insurers’ view of wildfire risk into one representing catastrophic peril—comparable in magnitude to hurricanes, windstorms, and earthquakes—came in the aftermath of the 2017 and 2018 California wildfire seasons. In this context, aligning insurance premiums with the potential for risk is increasingly complex.

He outlined several reasons why it is crucial to have insurance premiums that reflect risk. First, appropriately priced premiums incentivize cost-effective investments in mitigation, which is essential for reducing overall risk. Second, from the insurer’s perspective, premiums reflecting the true cost of providing insurance ensure the availability of coverage and maintain solvency for the paying out of claims in the event of disasters.

However, despite these motivating factors, Boomhower pointed out four unresolved problems in the insurance market:

• Difficulty in pricing risk: Wildfire risk, compared with other natural catastrophes such as earthquakes or hurricanes, is notoriously challenging to price accurately, Boomhower said. The inherent ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding wildfire risk can make insurers hesitant to fully engage in these markets. Improving the accuracy and reliability of risk models could alleviate some of these challenges, he said, though some aspects of wildfire risk may remain fundamentally unknowable.
• Tail risk and correlation: Wildfire risk involves significant tail risk and correlation, meaning insurers face the potential for large simultaneous payouts across a broad geographic area. Managing solvency in such scenarios requires costly measures, like purchasing reinsurance or maintaining large reserves, which adds financial strain.
• Government intervention: There are open questions about the role of government intervention through public-private partnerships, or improvements to reinsurance markets and insurance-linked securities. These measures could help insurers more effectively manage their exposure to catastrophic wildfire losses.
• Insurance rate regulation: While insurance rate regulations in the United States are designed to protect consumers and ensure fair pricing, there are concerns that they may hinder necessary premium adjustments essential for market functioning. Understanding the balance between consumer protection and market efficiency is crucial.

Electricity Infrastructure

Boomhower noted that electric utilities bear a significant responsibility for many of the most damaging wildfires—particularly in California where investor-owned utilities alone spend approximately $10 billion annually on mitigating wildfire ignitions.²¹ This substantial investment reflects not only the profound risk posed by their operations, but also the considerable damages to which they have contributed.

There are critical basic science questions regarding how best to reduce electric grid-generated wildfire risk. Boomhower pointed out one major debate, which concerns whether to invest in an effective but costly measure of underground power lines, compared to alternatives like grid reclosers, which can swiftly respond to faults and prevent ignitions. Another strategy would involve implementing public safety power shutoffs on high-fire-risk days—though these measures would be disruptive and expensive. It remains unclear, he commented, how to go about balancing these different options.

He went on to add that, moreover, the cost required to make the electric grid more resilient to wildfires, in current dollars, would be exorbitant. These expenses are typically passed along to consumers in their electricity bills, a practice that has significantly increased costs in California. This rise in electricity prices has become a notable concern among economists, who argue that it could hinder the broader energy transition.²² Boomhower noted, for instance, that higher electricity costs relative to gasoline prices might discourage households from adopting electric vehicles or switching to electric heat pumps—which are crucial steps in the goal of achieving a decarbonized grid and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

___________________

²¹ Boston Consulting Group. (2023, March). California wildfires – the utilities’ role: Unpacking the headlines. https://web-assets.bcg.com/34/1e/0cf3b15744cabfd2e8d6467f5653/california-wildfires-the-utilities-role.pdf

²² Hering, G. (2024, February 26). Skyrocketing electricity prices test California’s energy transition. S&P Global. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/skyrocketing-electricity-prices-test-california-s-energy-transition-80305308

___________________

²³ More information about the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board is available at https://energysafety.ca.gov/what-we-do/wildfire-safety-advisory-board/

²⁴ Sumagaysay, L. (2024, June 12). California pushes insurers to cover more homes in these areas. Is your ZIP included? CalMatters. https://calmatters.org/economy/2024/06/california-pushes-insurers-to-cover-more-homes-in-these-areas-is-your-zip-included/

²⁵ U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee. (2023, October). Climate-exacerbated wildfires cost the U.S. between $394 to $893 billion each year in economic costs and damages. https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/9220abde-7b60-4d05-ba0a-8cc20df44c7d/jec-report-on-total-costs-of-wildfires.pdf

Boomhower acknowledged the issue and compared it to the response to flood and hurricane risks. Mortgage lenders, he noted, might become more restrictive about writing new mortgages in high-risk wildfire areas. He went on to point out that public programs like the California FAIR Plan,²⁶ designed to provide insurance where private insurers will not, have seen skyrocketing participation, raising questions about sustainability. He stressed the importance of finding ways to continue providing insurance in this new environmental climate change-influenced reality.

Weber cited a recent Standard and Poor report indicating the reinsurance sector may be underestimated by 33 to 50 percent due to an underestimation of the impacts of climate change.²⁷

Architectural Innovation and Fire Resilience in Building Design

David Shew, a retired Cal Fire Chief and current fire administrator in Napa County, California, highlighted the challenge of adding multiple layers of fire-resilient materials to buildings. Since buildings are dynamic structures, he noted that the long-term performance potential of these materials is unknown. He expressed concern about the lack of involvement from architects in designing fire-resilient buildings, emphasizing the need for innovative building systems that provide both energy efficiency and disaster resilience. Mentioning the current resistance from the traditional wood and construction industries, he called for an increased focus on future ideas and creative companies designing buildings with high levels of energy efficiency and disaster resiliency. He asked for feedback in three areas: on how to utilize better building materials; on what better systems are available to add to resilience and energy efficiency; and on the possibility of community effects that could also help reduce insurance rates due to lowered risk.

Moritz agreed, emphasizing the need for progress in architectural and landscape design to create survivable communities. Mentioning the myth that all development is local, Moritz, suggesting the potential for top-down guidance in California and other states, pointed out that the entire area is poised for significant advancements.

A participant added that companies like KB Home, one of the largest home builders in the United States, are already pursuing strategies toward improved energy conservation, water conservation, indoor air quality, and now wildfire resilience in the Sunbelt. He highlighted the potential opportunity for companies, communities, and individuals to scale up innovations in building design and other approaches addressing wildfire. Syphard agreed, noting that companies are taking a unique and innovative approach to home building.

Poverty and Wildfire Smoke: Examining Health Disparities and Climate Resilience

Inquiring about the link between poverty and wildfire smoke, a participant asked if there is a gap with regard to understanding how poverty-related factors might exacerbate exposure to smoke, leading to health disparities.

Henderson responded by noting that the built environment significantly modifies health impacts, as people spend most of their time indoors, which affects their exposure to smoke, heat, and fire. She emphasized that focusing solely on fire resilience misses the broader need for climate-resilient building practices. Henderson went on to highlight how climate-resilient environments are more accessible to those with financial means. She pointed out that climate change-related health impacts are disproportionately more extreme on vulnerable populations, with poverty being a primary driver of this vulnerability. Citing the 2021 heat dome in British Columbia, she said in this context poverty was the leading risk factor for mortality.²⁸ She went on further to state that research found that the health impacts of wildfire smoke are greater in socioeconomically deprived areas.²⁹ Stressing that these effects

___________________

²⁶ More information about the California FAIR Plan is available at https://www.cfpnet.com/

²⁷ Sugrue, D. P., Bender, J., Delpuech, M., Gharib, T., Munday, P., & Chauhan, R. (2021, September 23). Global reinsurers grapple with climate change risks. S&P Global. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/210923-global-reinsurers-grapple-with-climate-change-risks-12116706

²⁸ Henderson, S. B., McLean, K. E., Lee, M. J., & Kosatsky, T. (2022). Analysis of community deaths during the catastrophic 2021 heat dome: Early evidence to inform the public health response during subsequent events in greater Vancouver, Canada. Environmental Epidemiology, 6(1), e189.

²⁹ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024). Which populations experience greater risks of adverse health effects resulting from wildfire smoke exposure? https://www.epa.gov/wildfire-smoke-course/which-populations-experience-greater-risks-adverse-health-effects-resulting

are not evenly distributed across the population, but are concentrated in more susceptible groups, Henderson said poverty is the most significant susceptibility factor.

Building Trust Between Fire Departments and Communities: Challenges and Solutions

Brent Woodworth, chairman and CEO of the Los Angeles Emergency Preparedness Foundation and a safety commissioner in Malibu, raised concerns about how following the Woolsey Fire, there was a significant loss of trust between and among the Los Angeles County Fire Department, responders, and community members. He noted that communities have traditionally relied on the fire department to protect them, but the massive scale of the Woolsey Fire made it impossible for the fire department to meet everyone’s expectations, resulting in bad feelings. To address this, Woodworth and his team, in collaboration with academics, conducted a five-year study involving interviews with more than 100 individuals.³⁰ They worked to bridge the trust gap by encouraging community collaboration with the fire departments. This effort led to the creation of the Community Brigade pilot program designed to help mitigate risk.³¹ The program has served about 400 homes and has also trained independent fire brigades working under the fire department’s guidance to help put out spot fires, ember fires, and supplement some fire department resources since 80 percent of resources are in the private sector.

Noting that building trust is critical and complex, McCaffrey emphasized the importance of understanding the factors involved in trust-building. Moritz added that trust issues are particularly complicated when it comes to decisions about sheltering in place during a fire. He mentioned that firefighters are hesitant to publicly map critical locations, such as temporary refuge areas (TRAs), because doing so might imply that staying in place during a fire is acceptable when in fact it is not—which could complicate trust and communication. McCaffrey further remarked that this hesitation reflects an inverse trust issue where firefighters are not trusting individuals to make safe decisions.

Addressing Overlooked Risks: Worker Exposure in Wildfire Response and Cleanup

An audience member said that throughout today’s discussions, she had noticed a significant gap regarding the smoke exposure experienced by workers—which, she emphasized, overlaps with environmental justice issues. She said there are two critical stages to consider: during the response itself, involving firefighters, and in the aftermath within the wildfire-urban interface. Employees such as day laborers and undocumented workers who participate in fire-fighting efforts and in subsequent cleanup face exposure not only to smoke but also to hazardous toxins like Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins, heavy metals, volatile organics, and isocyanates. Often going unnoticed, she emphasized, is the fact that these risks persist both during active fires and during the cleanup phase. In addition to the compelling stories shared in the workshop, she said there is a need to acknowledge that these vulnerable workers—including construction workers, day laborers, migrant workers, undocumented individuals, and landscapers, many often from communities of color and low socioeconomic backgrounds—are excluded from cost-benefit analyses, insurance assessments, and other discussions. Though the health impacts on vulnerable populations, including children and the elderly, are difficult to quantify in terms of economic costs, she said that addressing these issues is crucial for advancing environmental justice and protecting the health of all workers involved in wildfire response and cleanup efforts.

___________________

³⁰ E.g., Jensen, S., Feldmann-Jensen, S., & Woodworth, B. (2019, December). The 2018 Woolsey fire: A catalyst for change. A roadmap to create a safe and thriving community living at the wildland urban interface amid a changing climate. Prepared for the Los Angeles Emergency Preparedness Foundation.

³¹ The pilot communities include Malibu West, Point Dume, Big Rock, Hidden Hills, Corral Canyon, Topanga Canyon, and county line communities. More information about the Community Brigade pilot program is available at https://laepf.org/community-brigade