Wildfire damages and the cost-effective role of forest fuel treatments.
Saved in:
| Title: | Wildfire damages and the cost-effective role of forest fuel treatments. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Strabo, Frederik (AUTHOR), Bryan, Calvin (AUTHOR), Reimer, Matthew N. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Science. 5/7/2026, Vol. 392 Issue 6798, p629-635. 7p. |
| Subjects: | Cost effectiveness, Vegetation management, Wildfire risk, Public health, Environmental policy, Tax incentives, Carbon emissions |
| Geographic Terms: | West (U.S.) |
| Abstract: | Wildfires are among the most pressing environmental challenges of the 21st century, intensified by the accumulation of forest fuels after a century of fire suppression policies. Although fuel-reduction treatments ("fuel treatments") are a primary tool for reducing wildfire risk, they remain underutilized, partly owing to limited evidence of their economic value. In this study, we integrated high-resolution data on wildfires, fuel treatments, suppression effort, and damages across the Western United States to assess their cost-effectiveness. Using a quasi-experimental design, we found that fuel treatments reduced wildfire spread and severity, avoiding an estimated $2.8 billion in damages by limiting structure loss, cutting carbon dioxide emissions, and lowering fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposure. Each dollar invested yielded $3.73 in expected benefits. Our findings demonstrate the value of fuel treatment investments and offer guidance for maximizing their effectiveness. Editor's summary: Wildfires have increased dramatically in number, severity, and extent over recent decades, leading to greater health, environmental, and economic damage. There has been considerable debate about how best to minimize fire activity to mitigate these negative impacts. Strabo et al. analyzed the value of fuel treatments, attempts to reduce fuel loads through activities such as prescribed burns and biomass removal. Fuel treatments are a cost-effective approach for forest restoration and wildfire mitigation but using them at scale will demand bold policy reform involving careful consideration of environmental policy and strategic economic incentives. —Jesse Smith [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Science is the property of American Association for the Advancement of Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Wildfires are among the most pressing environmental challenges of the 21st century, intensified by the accumulation of forest fuels after a century of fire suppression policies. Although fuel-reduction treatments ("fuel treatments") are a primary tool for reducing wildfire risk, they remain underutilized, partly owing to limited evidence of their economic value. In this study, we integrated high-resolution data on wildfires, fuel treatments, suppression effort, and damages across the Western United States to assess their cost-effectiveness. Using a quasi-experimental design, we found that fuel treatments reduced wildfire spread and severity, avoiding an estimated $2.8 billion in damages by limiting structure loss, cutting carbon dioxide emissions, and lowering fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposure. Each dollar invested yielded $3.73 in expected benefits. Our findings demonstrate the value of fuel treatment investments and offer guidance for maximizing their effectiveness. Editor's summary: Wildfires have increased dramatically in number, severity, and extent over recent decades, leading to greater health, environmental, and economic damage. There has been considerable debate about how best to minimize fire activity to mitigate these negative impacts. Strabo et al. analyzed the value of fuel treatments, attempts to reduce fuel loads through activities such as prescribed burns and biomass removal. Fuel treatments are a cost-effective approach for forest restoration and wildfire mitigation but using them at scale will demand bold policy reform involving careful consideration of environmental policy and strategic economic incentives. —Jesse Smith [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00368075 |
| DOI: | 10.1126/science.aea6463 |
