For lack of a better alternative, wildfire risk reduction hasbeen measured by the volume of work completed. Acres treated. Miles cleared. Chipping events held. Homes visited. Meetings conducted. These are the metrics most often reported to councils, community members, and grant agencies. They are familiar and easy to track, yet they rarely answer the question that matters most: Are we meaningfully reducing the probability of large-scale loss?
As wildfire conditions accelerate across the West, the gap between activity and impact has become increasingly clear. Communities can be highly active and still remain dangerously vulnerable. This disconnect is not the result of insufficient effort or inadequate intention. It is a structural issue rooted in how wildfire programs have historically been planned, measured, and funded.
To bend the curve of loss, communities need to shift from output-based thinking to outcome-based planning that aligns resources with the specific conditions that drive catastrophic wildfire events.
Activity Is Not the Problem. Alignment Is.
A common belief is that wildfire risk is primarily a resource problem. If agencies had more money, more staff, and more equipment, they could simply do more work and reduce more risk. But as many communities have seen firsthand, more activity does not guarantee better outcomes.
During recent discussions in ILG’s Advanced Wildfire Risk Reduction series, one theme emerged repeatedly.
Money is not the only limiting factor. Effectiveness depends on doing the right work in the right places.
Communities can invest significant effort into vegetation projects or outreach programs that feel productive but have little impact on the actual pathways through which wildfire is likely to cause structure loss. When effort is spread evenly or guided by the “squeaky wheel,” outcomes become disconnected from the hazards that matter most.
The result is a pattern seen across the West. High levels of activity with limited change in community vulnerability.
The Limits of Traditional Metrics
Most wildfire programs report outputs because they are simple to measure. Acres treated. Parcels inspected. Workshops held. These numbers can be important, but they do not indicate whether risk has actually been reduced.
The central issue is that wildfire risk is not linear. Doing “a little bit everywhere” rarely produces meaningful benefits. Research and real-world events continue to show that risk reduction follows a threshold pattern. Below a certain point, mitigation has almost no effect. Above that point, benefits increase rapidly.
This means communities cannot rely on small, scattered efforts. They must understand where wildfire is most likely to enter the built environment and which structures are most capable of triggering structure-to-structure ignition. Only then can they focus effort where it will create measurable change.
Why Outcome-Based Planning Works Better
Outcome-based planning shifts the emphasis from “how much work was done” to “what risk was removed.” This requires a clear understanding of the conditions that drive loss.
For most communities, the biggest risk comes from fast-moving, wind-driven fires that overwhelm firefighting resources and ignite multiple structures in a short period of time.
These events hinge on three critical factors:
- Where fire is likely to travel: Local topography, wind patterns, and fuel types determine how wildfire will move into or across a community.
- Which structures are most vulnerable: Older homes, combustible materials, narrow streets, and limited setbacks create high-propagation environments where even a single ignition can escalate into urban fire.
- Where mitigation matters most: Some parcels act as ignition amplifiers. Others create natural buffers. Understanding these differences guides targeted, high-impact work.
When communities align mitigation efforts with these points of consequence, they move from general activity to strategic intervention. The goal becomes clear. Reduce the likelihood of wildfire entering a neighborhood and prevent the transition from vegetation fire to urban fire.
A Better Way to Measure Progress
Outcome-based wildfire planning introduces new questions that help communities evaluate real risk reduction:
- Are there fewer high-propagation parcels after mitigation?
- Have we reduced the speed at which fire would reach homes?
- Do key points of entry have adequate defensible space and hardened structures?
- Would firefighting resources have more time to intervene during a wind-driven event?
- Has the risk of structure-to-structure ignition been lowered?
These metrics speak directly to resilience. They allow communities to communicate progress more transparently and justify investments with data that matters to residents, policymakers, and insurers.
Building Toward Meaningful Risk Reduction
Transitioning from activity-based to outcome-based planning requires new tools and clearer visibility into local fire behavior. Communities must be able to identify their points of greatest vulnerability and focus resources accordingly. This is where fire pathways modeling, structure assessments, and prioritized mitigation roadmaps become essential.
The aim is not to do more. It is to do what matters.
By grounding wildfire programs in measurable outcomes rather than activity counts, communities can direct limited resources to the work that breaks the chain of ignition, slows fire spread, and strengthens overall resilience.
The path to bending the curve begins with a simple shift in thinking: Measure what matters. Invest where it counts. Build plans that reflect how fire actually behaves.
To learn how outcome-based wildfire planning can support your community, contact XyloPlan to explore localized modeling and prioritized mitigation strategies that drive measurable risk reduction.