Controlled Burns Save Billions: Study Shows $3.73 Return for Every Dollar Spent

The U.S. Forest Service has long managed public lands to reduce wildfire risks through methods like prescribed burns—a practice Indigenous nations have used for centuries. While scientists have praised the ecological benefits of these “fuel treatments,” a new study highlights another compelling reason to support them: they save money.

Published today in the journal Science, the study found that every dollar spent on fuel treatments avoided $3.73 in smoke-related health costs, property damage, and carbon emissions. Frederik Strabo, lead author and economist at the University of California, Davis, noted,

“A lot of people have suggested that there could be potential economic benefits, but it’s been a pretty understudied area.”

The research analyzed high-resolution data from 285 wildfires across 11 Western states between 2017 and 2023. These fires burned through areas where the Forest Service had previously reduced fuel loads. Key findings include:

• Fuel treatments decreased the total area burned by 36%.
• They reduced land burned at moderate to high severity by 26%.

Researchers then calculated the economic impact of these reductions. The study estimated that fuel treatments prevented:

• $1.39 billion in health and workforce productivity losses from wildfire smoke.
• $895 million in structural damage.
• $503 million in carbon dioxide emissions costs.

Overall, the treatments generated an average savings of $3.73 for every dollar spent by the government. The research also found that larger treatments—those covering more than 2,400 acres—were the most cost-effective.

Strabo cautioned,

“It’s a significant number, but when you compare it to the total cost of wildfires, it’s small.”

“We’re only capturing a specific subset of benefits.”

Expert Reactions: Strong Support and Cautionary Notes

Morgan Varner, director of fire research at the conservation nonprofit Tall Timbers, called the study

“the missing link for a lot of fuels treatment research.”

“Studies like this round out the story and provide more evidence for the benefits of these treatments.”

David Calkin, former Forest Service research scientist, praised the analysis as

“novel.”

“A lot of the values of fuel management are non-market,”

“I’m not trying to reduce the importance of fuel management and the value of it. It’s just highly uncertain. I worry about trying to monetize the value of treatments on public lands.”