"This is a call for action": U.S. building fire risk could nearly triple

Annual fire risk to buildings across the contiguous United States could nearly triple by mid-century without new adaptation, according to a study that links future losses to fire and development. ^[2]

The peer-reviewed research, published in Nature Communications on November 3, 2026, compares mean annual structural losses in 2051-2060 with those in 2011-2020. ^[2]

Researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder combined historical fire, development and loss data with climate and housing projections. They estimate that 133,200 to 449,100 buildings could be damaged or destroyed cumulatively between 2025 and 2060. That is a separate calculation from the near-tripling of annual risk, not a count of buildings already lost. ^{[1] [2]}

"This is a call for action," said lead author Virginia Iglesias. She said fire risk would rise significantly without changes to climate policy, development, community mitigation and preparedness. ^[1]

The projection makes those decisions part of the story. It measures the damage communities could suffer under a particular set of choices, giving governments a reason to examine those choices now.

What the number counts

The researchers reconstructed structural fire risk from 1945 to 2023, then projected it through 2060. Their definition combines fire hazard, the presence of structures in harm's way, and structural and social vulnerability. The model uses relationships between past fire characteristics, development and structural losses to estimate that risk. ^[2]

The distinction shows up in the figures. Annual burned area nationwide is projected to reach about twice its 2011-2020 level by mid-century, while expected annual structural losses could approach three times the baseline under the no-adaptation scenario. The near-tripling concerns damage to buildings, rather than the amount of land that burns. ^[2]

The study's climate projections come from three global models using RCP 4.5, an emissions pathway the paper describes as representing moderate mitigation outcomes. The near-tripling therefore sits within a specified climate scenario as well as an assumption about adaptation. ^[2]

Development puts more in the path

The history of construction helps explain why structural risk can grow faster than burned area. The paper's introduction says built-up land in fire hotspots has expanded tenfold since the mid-1970s. Much of that growth has been in low- and medium-density development near or mixed with vegetation. ^[2]

That is an increase in what can be lost. Climate shapes fire conditions, but development determines how much construction is exposed to them. Treating the projection as a weather forecast would leave out decisions that put buildings in harm's way.

The West is projected to remain the centre of structural losses. The study also projects substantial growth in fire activity in the Central United States, extending the planning problem beyond the region expected to sustain the greatest absolute damage. ^[2]

The regional findings pose different questions. Where expected losses are already concentrated, protection has to reach existing communities. Where fire activity is projected to grow, land-use decisions can shape future exposure before more construction takes place. Those are different tasks, even when both appear in the same national total.

Resources also matter. In 30% of the western census tracts projected to face the highest fire risk, the researchers found an overlap with socioeconomic hardship. That figure concerns a subset of high-risk western areas, rather than 30% of all western communities. ^[2]

A map of likely losses is therefore also a guide to where protection may be hardest to afford. Risk reduction that depends entirely on each owner paying for improvements would leave the communities identified by that overlap facing an additional obstacle.

The choices behind the projection

The researchers describe their fire projections as plausible scenarios rather than precise forecasts. Vegetation, fire suppression, fuel management and land-use policy can all affect the outcome. ^[2]

A comparison establishing which intervention would cut projected structural losses most, or by how much, could not be verified for this story.

That leaves governments with a sharper task than simply acknowledging rising danger: compare measures by the building losses they can prevent. Climate policy, decisions about where development goes, management of combustible vegetation and protection of structures act on different parts of the risk calculation. ^{[1] [2]}

Iglesias said the work should help target investment and that new building codes alone are insufficient. Her emphasis extends beyond new construction to community mitigation and preparedness. ^[1]

The next practical step is to turn the national projection into investment choices for particular places, including communities with limited resources. The number to bring back to those decisions is expected structural loss: how much each measure reduces it, at what cost, and for whom.