Oregon and Washington are currently fighting 37 major wildfires, and over 9,000 people are under evacuation notice. It is a blistering wildfire season but one we knew to expect. And thanks to technology and wildfire hazard maps, we also know where to expect intense fires.
Hazard maps are a key piece in the wildfire crisis puzzle that we’re racing against time to finish. While it’s true that wildfires can destroy homes anywhere (as we learned when the Tubbs Fire burned through urban Santa Rosa, California), they are much more likely in certain predictable places. These places are where geography, climate, and vegetation make the likelihood of severe fire high and where dwellings are near wildlands or intermingle with them (the so-called wildland-urban interface, or WUI [pronounced WOO-ee]). Scientists now have the modeling technology to identify where intense fires are likely to occur, and wildfire hazard maps can display this likelihood (or hazard score) for individual properties.
It’s easy to miss just how important these maps are. While scientists cannot predict where the next potential conflagration will occur each year, maps anchor our individual and collective strategies for thriving in the new wildfire normal. Without maps, states do not know where to focus the limited aid for property owners that can inspire changing awareness and social norms; house-seekers and developers gamble on where to buy or build; and public policy will continue to subsidize building in high-hazard places and restrict building in safe cities and towns.
Most states need better wildfire hazard maps. All US western states have some kind of statewide map and national maps exist as well, but only Oregon and California’s maps reflect advanced modeling and data integration and display the hazard score at the property level (although Washington does have a map in development). It’s time for other states to consider these models. Oregon and California use their maps to guide mandatory wildfire building codes and, in Oregon, a defensible space code as well. However, while mandatory codes save billions in firefighting, emergency response, post-fire cleanup, and economic aid, states that are not ready to enforce codes can greatly benefit from using hazard maps to guide public resources and private decisions.
The wildfire crisis: Three causes and two solutions
The West is in a wildfire crisis that is not going to ease. In British Columbia, tens of thousands were evacuated during the 2023 wildfire season. In Oregon, the 2020 Labor Day wildfires destroyed more than 4,000 houses and businesses, causing an estimated $4 billion in damages. In Washington, the 2023 Gray and Oregon Road fires left hundreds homeless. In California, the 2018 Camp Fire took 85 lives. The list goes on. People are mourning. State and federal lawmakers are performing backflips to refill hemorrhaging coffers. Property owners are losing their insurance or swallowing steep rate hikes. Without action, suffering and runaway public expenditures will only get worse.
The first step is understanding what is causing the crisis so that leaders can address its roots. Two causes—climate change and a buildup of forest fuels—get most of the attention. But there is a third and equally important factor: building houses where wildfires naturally burn every 15 to 20 years—places where homes would inevitably burn down without expensive wildfire protection.
A housing development breaks ground in a high wildfire hazard areas near Spokane, WA. If completed, without continual expenditures on fire protection, these homes will likely burn down. Source: Kirk Fisher, Adobe Stock.
The best solution to the wildfire crisis is to not build houses where they are likely to burn down. Scientists who are looking at climate forecasts and related heating up and drying out of the land say that building houses in the fire-prone WUI should be our biggest concern.
The second-best solution, for existing dwellings and any new construction, is to make homes fire-resistant—in other words, fire-hardening the structure and creating defensible space around it. The major elements of fire-hardening a structure are covering vents with fine mesh, plugging any gaps or holes where embers could enter, and using fire-resistant materials such as noncombustible siding and decking and dual-pane tempered glass windows. For new construction, this likely costs about the same as building a fire-vulnerable house. Meanwhile, “defensible space” refers to a buffer around the house that allows firefighters a safe space to work and keeps flames and embers away from the structure. This involves, for example, maintaining space between tree canopies, keeping grass trimmed, and removing combustible material and vegetation next to the house.
The data show (and firefighters will tell you) that fire-hardened houses survive fires that incinerate neighboring non-fire-hardened houses. And fire-hardening one house helps prevent the structure-to-structure domino spread that devastates whole communities.
Unseen forces: The policies and cognitive biases behind inaction
Unfortunately, people continue to build in the fire-prone WUI. In fact residential development in the WUI is growing faster than anywhere else in the United States. People are even building houses in the exact spots where wildfires burned just a few years prior. And fire-hardened communities are not, in general, popping up voluntarily.
Given the abundance of evidence that fire-hardening homes and communities is in everyone’s (both property owners’ and the public at large’s) best interest, why are people not taking actions to mitigate their risk?
In some cases, people make these risky decisions because they are unaware or unsure of the fire hazard—or because they don’t know the benefits of fire-hardening, don’t know where to start, or can’t afford it, even though it will save them thousands of dollars in the long run.
A more central reason is that house owners don’t pay anywhere close to the full costs of wildfires. They don’t see the enormous public expenditures on preventing wildfires, fighting wildfires, or cleaning up and repairing after wildfire destruction. In 2021 US taxpayers spent a record $4.4 billion and $3.2 billion last year on fire suppression alone. In the western United States, this fire protection subsidy can exceed 20 percent of a home’s value. When this fire protection fails, the emergency response, infrastructure repair, and debris removal adds additional invisible subsidies, collectively in the billions of dollars every year. And, it turns out, all insurance customers, especially those in low-hazard areas, pay higher rates to fund insurance payouts in high wildfire hazard areas.
Because house owners enjoy all the benefits of living in a high wildfire hazard place (an affordable home in a beautiful rural setting, perhaps with a pleasing cedar roof and pretty trees alongside the house) and only pay a portion of these costs, it’s easier to understand why they build there and why they decline to fire-harden. From an economics perspective, it makes sense.
Well, it almost makes sense. Research also suggests that house owners, on average, spend less to fire-harden their properties than cost-benefit analyses indicate they should, if they want to maximize their financial pie. This is true even when the public costs described above are ignored and only their private costs are considered. John Vaillant, author of Fire Weather: The Making of a Beast, attributes this irrational behavior in part to a universal pattern of judgment sometimes called the Lucretius problem. He writes, “We imagine the most extreme thing possible as the most extreme thing we have witnessed.” This is nothing new; Lucretius, a Roman philosopher, made this observation in the first century BCE.
A Community Wildfire Protection Corps crew creates defensible space around an Oregon home. Source: Northwest Youth Corps. Used with permission.
Eric McMullen of Oregon’s Building Codes Division has seen this firsthand. Over his 30-year career as a firefighter, McMullen tried to push defensible space and home hardening, with little traction. “It’s super frustrating. It’s hard to get people motivated unless they’ve lived it or they’ve seen it,” he said. “For the people that live it—for Detroit or Talent—they’re all for the building codes. They’re like, ‘Heck, yeah, I don’t want to do that again.’” (Note: I discuss building codes below.)
Social psychologists and behavioral economists have cataloged a long list of cognitive tendencies that lead to counterproductive choices such as building in wildfire hazard zones and not fire-hardening: status quo bias, temporal discounting, sunk cost fallacy, overconfidence effect, and social proof bias, to name a few.
Five ways wildfire hazard maps can help
For all these challenges, wildfire hazard maps are the foundation of successful solutions.
- Most simply, maps tell people where it is unsafe for them to build and where it’s in their best interest to fire-harden their home. In fact, real estate apps are displaying wildfire hazard scores, based on coarse modeling, to help house-seekers decide where to buy.
- Maps direct resources to where they’re most needed. In an ideal world, public agencies would help everyone, but given limited budgets, wildfire hazard maps guide a whole array of valuable public services to the most vulnerable areas. These services include free home assessments that evaluate wildfire vulnerability and recommend corrective actions; technical assistance to residential areas wanting to become a Firewise USA® community; public education kiosks at Home Depot and other places that contractors frequent; and financial assistance or even labor for fire-hardening a property.
- Where there is political support for mandatory wildfire building codes, maps can prevent a blunt one-size-fits-all approach and help agencies require these codes only where they are most crucial.
- Maps can redirect housing growth away from wildfire hazard zones.
- Finally, maps can help with the Lucretius problem and other cognitive biases that come with being human. Concrete evidence of risk makes it harder to justify risky choices. But more important, as more people build fire-resistant dwellings, fire-hardening social norms will evolve and fire resistance will become an expected standard. As the market catches up with the codes, new and likely less expensive fire-resistant materials and fire-resistant architectural styles will become more visible and accessible options, and this will nudge people to use them.
Lessons from Oregon
In 2021 Oregon commissioned a state-of-the-art wildfire hazard map and made adherence to its wildfire building code and defensible space code mandatory in certain circumstances. The final maps will go online in October.
Western states can benefit from the tools Oregon has developed and tested—and from its initial public relations missteps and subsequent successful communications rollout. About that rollout, Susan Jacoby, whose home sits in an extremely high-hazard zone near The Dalles, Oregon, said, “The folks in Oregon have lots of insight as to what steps to take and what missteps to avoid.”
The 2020 Labor Day fires
After the 2020 Labor Day fires in Oregon, public support for statewide protective policies rallied past a tipping point. These fires were uncontainable and hit multiple regions simultaneously, causing the evacuation of roughly 40,000 people and the destruction of 4,000 homes and businesses. The Labor Day fires cost the Oregon government, FEMA, and HUD well over $1 billion in emergency response; evacuation; debris and hazardous waste removal; housing and financial assistance; support for rebuilding; damaged infrastructure; and mental health services. Private insurance claims roughly totaled an additional $3 billion. That’s about $9 per person in the United States spent on one weekend’s worth of fires in one state.
Residents of Detroit, Oregon, gather together after the Santiam Fire burned over 1,500 homes. Source: InciWeb.
Senate Bill 762
In 2021 the Oregon legislature passed Senate Bill 762, which advanced three strategies to limit wildfire damage:
- A wildfire hazard map, to be overlaid with a WUI map.
- A mandatory wildfire building code for new construction in high-hazard areas of the WUI.
- A defensible space code for all dwellings (existing and new) in high-hazard areas of the WUI.
The maps
In October, Oregon will release a sophisticated and high-resolution wildfire hazard map. For each property, the map identifies the likelihood of a severe wildfire event based on climate, the slope and geography of the terrain, wind patterns, temperature and precipitation, and vegetation. (Find the methodology here.) The public-facing hazard map displays the scores as low, medium, or high.1 The complementary WUI map identifies which properties are near or intermingle with wildlands.
Because the WUI is such a minor sliver of Oregon’s land base, and because much of the WUI faces low or medium fire hazard, it turns out that only about 4.4 percent of Oregon dwellings currently fall in the overlap of both high fire hazard and WUI. For example, residences on the outskirts of Newport and other coastal towns may be in the WUI but the moist forests around them face a low likelihood of intense wildfire. On the flip side, condos in downtown Bend might be located in a high-hazard area, but their urban setting provides a degree of protection. And the great majority of Oregon acres have no dwellings anywhere nearby.
Oregon’s wildfire building code
For dwellings that are both in the WUI and face high wildfire hazard, Oregon will enforce a mandatory fire-hardening building code.2 This won’t affect most people already living in the overlap area because existing structures are grandfathered in. Only new construction and existing exterior elements that are replaced in their entirety must comply. Covered elements include roofing, gutters, ventilation, exterior walls, windows, and attached projections such as patio roofs and decking. The new code will not differ substantially from Oregon’s existing voluntary wildfire building code.
Oregon’s defensible space code
Where the WUI overlaps high wildfire hazard zones, Oregon will also enforce a mandatory defensible space code. The code covers the spacing of trees; lower branches that could act as ladder fuels, leading to crown fires or a house fire; debris on the ground; vegetation and combustibles next to the house; and ground cover that is not fire-resistive. (Find the draft code here.)
Unlike the wildfire building code, all properties (existing and new construction) must comply with the defensible space code. The state will delay enforcement for at least six months to a year while it educates house owners, completes free home assessments, distributes $250 gift certificates for defensible space tools or materials, and provides technical assistance and, in some cases, labor and additional financial assistance.
Oregon’s recovery from a botched rollout
Oregon’s implementation of SB 762 offers an important lesson: the need to invest in strategic communications. While the state made an impressive PR recovery, its initial implementation of the maps and codes in 2022 seeded fear and massive backlash. “What was missing was the rollout,” said Oregon State University College of Forestry professor Chris Dunn, who led the mapping work. “There was no communication strategy. There was no rollout strategy.”
SB 762 allowed only one year to get the maps online, which was nowhere near enough time for both technical development and public comment. The law also failed to direct or fund education about increasing wildfire danger, fire-hardening benefits, or available help from the state. There was no time and almost no effort to create buy-in, address concerns, and preempt fear, anger, and disinformation.
“That would have saved a lot of hassle,” Dunn said. “There’s nothing good about getting a letter in the mail that just slapped them in the face.”
Absent a communication strategy, individuals and small groups seeded disinformation that created panic and a widespread backlash. Some spread false claims that insurers were dropping customers because of the maps, property values would drop, and complying with the law could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. “All of a sudden, the biggest hazard was the map because, supposedly, it’s going to cost you maybe $100,000,” Dunn said. “Forget about the fire that I probably won’t see; this map is causing me problems right now.”
By summer 2024, Oregon had responded by 1) temporarily rescinding the hazard map to integrate public feedback, 2) passing new laws to prevent insurance abuses, and 3) launching a PR campaign.
In reality, the revised maps make few changes, but the inclusive process meaningfully addressed rather predictable concerns. One concrete change, reflecting feedback from farms, was lowering the hazard scores for irrigated cropland and hay and pastureland (where grazing animals keep grasses short).3
The state also addressed insurance concerns. Many people wrongly blamed the maps for a dramatic shift in the insurance market and insurers pulling out of high wildfire hazard zones and rapidly raising premiums to cover their losses. This unfortunately coincided with the maps’ release. In reality, the maps and insurers’ behavior were independent responses to growing wildfire damage. To protect house owners and quell fears, the legislature passed Senate Bill 82 in 2023 to create transparency in insurance nonrenewals and rate hikes. Under the law, insurers cannot base their actions on the state wildfire hazard map. Additionally, they must notify property owners when actions are related to wildfire risk and give property-specific reasons; and they must publish what mitigation efforts may improve insurability.
The third leg of the state’s communications recovery was its outreach program. Oregon changed its persona from callous and insensitive to caring and helpful. It offered personal support with insurance questions, direct conversations with county commissioners, and state assistance with code compliance.
Simone Cordery-Cotter explains fire-hardening in The Dalles, OR. Source: Kate Anderson
The strategic about-face was plain at the 2024 public forums held in fire-prone regions throughout Oregon. The initial meetings, in 2022, were held in a vacuum of information, with few answers to very real questions—after residents in the fire-prone WUI had first heard about the new rules in curt, alarming letters. Just two people (both from the mapping team) presented to angry crowds. Dunn told me, “We were stuck trying to deal with all the questions about insurance, which is a completely different agency, and defensible space or home-hardening standards. We just had to stand there for two hours and get yelled at.”
At the 2024 public meetings, experts from all relevant state agencies were in attendance, equipped with pamphlets, educational displays, and concrete answers. At six information tables around the room, pairs of experts from their respective state agency answered individuals’ questions.4 Mary Kyle McCurdy, vice chair of the state’s Wildfire Programs Advisory Council, explained that the table format allowed all attendees to learn about the maps and get their concerns addressed. It also prevented a few individuals from grandstanding and overshadowing other people’s questions. Jacoby, the house owner who attended both the 2022 and 2024 meetings, noted the contrast. “Two years ago, it was scary. We thought it was going to come to blows,” she said. “But it’s so cordial this year.”
Investing in our future
As climate change fuels more dangerous and frequent wildfires, the stakes have never been higher. It’s time for more states to harness the power of advanced wildfire hazard maps.
House owners often gamble with their safety, unaware of the impending risks they face or turning a blind eye to them. And they don’t pay the hidden costs that taxpayers subsidize. Wildfire hazard maps are tools that can help balance the cognitive biases and perverse economic incentives that spur rampant housing growth in dangerous places and cloud the urgency of fire-hardening homes and creating defensible space.
Oregon’s example shows how hazard maps, combined with WUI maps, transform raw data into actionable insights, illuminating the path to safer communities and smarter resource allocation. These maps avoid imposing mandatory wildfire codes where they are not absolutely necessary.
Oregon’s journey also teaches us a vital lesson: effective communication and community engagement are as crucial as the data and the codes themselves. The state’s transition from public backlash to widespread acceptance underscores the power of transparency and education. Even the Oregon Property Owners Association (OPOA), a group dedicated to protecting landowners from government overreach, is now convinced. Dave Hunnicutt, OPOA president, understands that the maps and codes are adding value to properties. From behind an information table at a public meeting in The Dalles, he told me, “In 2021, I fought against SB 762, but now I support it.” Other states can act now, add value to properties, and preempt painful and expensive property destruction by developing high quality and high-resolution wildfire hazard maps.
