Prescribed Burns Save Billions in Wildfire Costs, Study Finds

Prescribed Burns Could Slash Wildfire Costs by $3.73 for Every Dollar Spent

For decades, the U.S. Forest Service has managed public lands to reduce wildfire risks by clearing underbrush, thinning trees, or conducting prescribed burns—a practice Indigenous nations have used for centuries. While scientists have long recognized the ecological benefits of these "fuel treatments," new research highlights an additional advantage: substantial cost savings.

A study published in the journal Science on [DATE] found that every dollar invested in these tactics prevented $3.73 in damages from smoke, property loss, and emissions. "A lot of people have suggested that there could be potential economic benefits," said Frederik Strabo, lead author and economist at the University of California, Davis. "But it’s been a pretty understudied area."

Study Findings: Reduced Burn Area and Economic Impact

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 results included:

• 36% reduction in total area burned
• 26% reduction in land burned at moderate to high severity

Researchers then modeled the economic benefits of these reductions, estimating:

• $1.4 billion in health and workforce productivity losses prevented due to reduced wildfire smoke exposure
• $895 million in structural damage avoided
• $503 million in carbon dioxide emissions prevented

Overall, the study concluded that fuel treatments generated an average savings of $3.73 for every dollar spent by the government.

Larger Treatments Prove Most Cost-Effective

The research also found that larger fuel treatments—those covering more than 2,400 acres—were the most cost-effective. However, Frederik Strabo cautioned that while the savings are significant, they represent only a fraction of the total wildfire costs, which can reach hundreds of billions for the worst disasters.

"It provides further evidence that the administration’s current policy of full suppression in Western wildfire situations is misguided."

Strabo also noted that the study likely underestimates the total benefits, as it did not account for savings in the multibillion-dollar outdoor recreation industry or other intangible values.

Expert Reactions: A 'Missing Link' in Wildfire Research

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." He emphasized that such data is crucial for guiding policymakers.

"Studies like this round out the story and provide more evidence for the benefits of these treatments," Varner said.

David Calkin, former Forest Service research scientist, praised the analysis as "novel" but questioned whether all public benefits—such as ecological improvements and recreation access—can, or should, be assigned a monetary value.

"A lot of the values of fuel management are non-market. Ecological benefits, for instance, can be hard to quantify."

Calkin, who was not involved in the study, added, "I’m not trying to reduce the importance of the work, but we need to be careful about how we frame these benefits."

Why This Research Matters for Wildfire Policy

The findings come at a time when wildfire suppression costs in the U.S. continue to rise, with federal spending exceeding $3 billion annually in recent years. As climate change intensifies fire seasons, the study underscores the need for proactive land management strategies like prescribed burns to mitigate future risks and costs.