Wildfire Management: Reactive Response And Recovery, Or Proactive Mitigation And Prevention

Catastrophic wildfires – those causing massive damage and soaring suppression costs – are increasing in frequency and intensity worldwide, a trend expected to worsen with climate change. In a Policy Forum, Robert Gray and colleagues use British Columbia (BC), Canada, as a case study of a government at a crossroads: continue reactive spending on suppression and recovery or invest in strategies to reduce future wildfire risk. "Although we focus on BC, this same tough question, along with lessons learned and our main recommendations, apply to regional and national governments in dozens of countries," Gray et al. write. Over the past decade, BC has lost more than 7 million hectares to wildfire, with suppression and recovery costs topping $4.8 billion. Indirect costs, including health impacts and economic disruption, are far higher. Here, the authors argue that governments like BC are faced with an important policy choice; either continue to focus on response and recovery, or embrace proactive, long-term fire mitigation and prevention. Gray et al. highlight that scaling up wildfire mitigation requires public and political support for sustained, multidecade investments, along with cost-management strategies, yet governments continue to prioritize reactive spending despite evidence that prevention is far more cost-effective. They propose four recommendations: set clear resilience goals based on economic and risk analyses; foster public understanding and support for short-term sacrifices like prescribed burns; implement collaborative, hands-on landscape-scale interventions with scientists, Indigenous leaders, industry, and communities; and leverage public concern and scientific evidence to secure long-term political commitment and funding for preventive wildfire management.