A new paper co-authored by XyloPlan's Dave Winnacker gives state leaders a practical framework for the shift the industry needs to make: from measuring effort to measuring outcomes.
Across the western United States, states are investing significant resources in wildfire mitigation. Acres treated. Inspections completed. Programs funded.
The problem isn't a lack of activity. The problem is that many mitigation programs are built around measuring what gets done, not whether those actions meaningfully reduce risk. That distinction is at the center of a new paper from Milliman, and it's one the industry can no longer afford to ignore.
Measure Twice, Cut Once: A State-Level Framework for Effective Wildfire Risk Mitigation was co-authored by Michael Wara (Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment), Dave Winnacker (Western Fire Chiefs Association and XyloPlan Co-Founder), and Nancy Watkins (Milliman). It makes the case that western states need an outcomes-based framework for wildfire mitigation, one that starts with understanding where risk actually lives and ends with a prioritized plan for where to act first.
"We don't have enough firefighters or enough funding to treat every acre. The question isn't whether we're doing mitigation. The question is whether we're doing the right mitigation in the places where it will change outcomes."
— Dave Winnacker, Chief Fire Risk Officer and Co-Founder, XyloPlan
That's not a critique of effort. It's a critique of measurement.
States that track acres treated and dollars spent can demonstrate program activity. What they often can't demonstrate is risk reduction. They don't know which actions moved the needle, which ones didn't, and where the next dollar should go.
The paper argues that this is fixable, but only if states build the measurement infrastructure first. That means inventorying what's at risk, establishing metrics for quantifying risk and potential losses, identifying the physical drivers of catastrophic outcomes, and building a prioritized action plan from that foundation.
Without that structure, mitigation programs generate activity. With it, they can generate outcomes.
This isn't a theoretical argument.
Insurers are pulling out of high-risk markets. States are facing billions in uninsured losses. Community leaders are being asked to justify mitigation budgets to increasingly skeptical stakeholders.
The pressure to show that mitigation works is real and growing.
What the Wara, Winnacker, and Watkins paper provides is a framework for connecting investment decisions to measurable outcomes and giving policymakers, fire agencies, and insurers a shared approach for deciding where to act first.
That shift from activity to outcomes is not a new idea in fire science. It's overdue in fire policy.
At the community level, XyloPlan's Fire Pathways™ Architecture answers the same question the paper puts to state leaders: where will action change outcomes?
That requires understanding where fire is likely to enter a community, how it spreads through the built environment, and which interventions reduce exposure at the points that matter.
The Milliman framework operates at the state policy level. XyloPlan operates at the community and parcel level. Together, they support the same objective: helping decision-makers move from broad mitigation activities to targeted actions that measurably reduce wildfire risk.
In other words, they help leaders stop guessing and start prioritizing.
Read the Full Paper
Measure Twice, Cut Once is practical, grounded in fire science, and direct about the obstacles state leaders will face. If you're involved in wildfire mitigation policy, program design, or community insurability, it's worth your time.
To learn how XyloPlan helps communities identify where mitigation investments will have the greatest impact, connect with the XyloPlan team.