Land Use Strategies for Wildfire Risk Reduction During Post-Fire Recovery in the Western United States

Publication Date: 2026

Click to View the Research Brief

Abstract

This research investigated the integration of land use planning into wildfire recovery efforts in the Western United States, addressing the rising frequency of catastrophic wildfires and the need for mitigation-focused recovery strategies. There is a critical window of opportunity during the wildfire recovery period when local governments and the community may be more open to adopting regulatory changes such as zoning, building codes, subdivision regulations, and other land use policies to enhance resilience. However, these strategies remain underutilized by local governments in recovery planning. The study explored two primary research questions: (a) To what extent are land use strategies integrated into wildfire recovery plans in the Western region? and (b) What factors influenced this integration? We conducted content analysis of 15 wildfire recovery plans which had been prepared by communities impacted by recent wildfire events in four states: California, Colorado, Hawaii, and Oregon. Recovery plans were coded and scored using a framework that categorized land use approaches to wildfire mitigation into five broad categories: building regulations, vegetation management, subdivision regulations, zoning regulations, and preventative land use management strategies. We also conducted key informant interviews with 15 planners and public officials that provided qualitative insights into influencing factors, benefits, and challenges associated with land use planning in recovery efforts. This study has filled a critical gap by systematically examining the role of land use planning during the wildfire recovery stage, which is less explored than land use during the preparedness and mitigation planning stages; the latter have developed into a mature and formalized literature for wildfires. The findings show that subdivision regulations and vegetation management were the most frequently integrated strategies, while zoning changes and preventative measures such as managed retreat were limited due to political, financial, and logistical barriers. Policy recommendations include codifying subdivision access and water standards, requiring fire-resistant construction, and applying zoning overlays, setbacks, and density controls to steer rebuilding out of high-risk wildland urban interface (WUI) areas. Additional measures include establishing dedicated funding mechanisms for buyouts, Transfer/Planned Development Rights (TDR/PDR) approaches, and targeted relocation; creating cross-jurisdictional vegetation management agreements between local, state, and federal entities; and formalizing recovery planning to ensure strategies are systematically documented. Finally, enhanced insurance incentives, streamlined grant funding, and clear communication strategies to build public trust are critical for overcoming political resistance and sustaining long-term resilience.

Introduction

Wildfires in the United States are becoming increasingly frequent and severe, presenting major threats to communities, ecosystems, and infrastructure (Thomas et al., 2017¹; Weber & Yadav, 2020²). The U.S. West, in particular, has experienced a marked increase in wildfire activity and consequent damage (Wang et al., 2021³; Wibbenmeyer & Robertson, 2022). This escalation in wildfire frequency, intensity, and impact is attributed to climate change and the encroachment of urban development into wildland areas (Syphard et al., 2013⁴; Kramer et al., 2019⁵). In the face of increasing wildfire frequency, the post-wildfire recovery phase offers a critical opportunity for local and state governments, working with communities, to align recovery efforts with mitigation strategies that reduce future risks (Olshansky et al., 2012⁶; Shaw, 2014⁷).

Unlike national strategies aimed at mitigating flood losses, the utilization of land use planning as a method for wildfire risk reduction is not federally mandated (Miller, 2017⁸). Local entities tend to depend on alternative measures such as fire suppression, emergency response, and public education campaigns to combat rising wildfire risks (McGee, 2011⁹; Jakes & Sturtevant, 2013¹⁰). As the financial burden of wildfires increases, there is an emerging consensus on the necessity for a holistic and integrated approach that moves beyond suppression to include prevention and long-term risk reduction (Rasker, 2013¹¹; McIver et al., 2021¹²; Bayham et al., 2022¹³). This approach marks a shift from traditional, reactionary policies centered on wildfire suppression to more proactive strategies emphasizing long-term sustainability and community resilience, defined here as the capacity of communities to absorb, adapt to, and recover from wildfire impacts while maintaining essential functions (Steelman & Burke, 2007¹⁴).

Land use planning strategies—such as zoning regulations, building codes, and subdivision guidelines—have proven effective in managing disaster risks and ensuring community resilience (Burby et al., 2000¹⁵; Ge & Lindell, 2016¹⁶). Land use regulations can influence patterns of development, such as lot layout, density, and infrastructure siting, in fire-prone areas and thus can be a critical component in wildfire mitigation (Calkin et al., 2015¹⁷; Mockrin et al., 2016¹⁸). However, their application in wildfire management remains underexplored and underutilized (Mockrin et al., 2020¹⁹).

While previous research has primarily focused on emergency response planning and mitigation during pre-disaster phases, the role of land use planning in post-wildfire recovery remains underexplored. This research addresses this gap by examining the extent to which land use planning strategies are integrated into recovery plans across the Western United States and identifying key factors influencing their adoption. This research aims to provide actionable insights into enhancing wildfire recovery processes, ultimately supporting the development of more resilient, fire-adapted communities.

Literature Review

The post-wildfire recovery phase presents an opportunity to make adaptive changes to the built environment, such as adjustments to zoning laws guiding development in the wildland urban interface (WUI) or land use regulations that specify building materials to be used in home construction (Alexandre et al., 2014²⁰).

Wildfire Recovery Planning: Challenges and Opportunities

Wildfire recovery planning aims to restore the affected community while improving its ability to withstand and adapt to future fire events (Davies et al., 2018²¹; McWethy et al., 2019²²). Wildfire events that cause significant damage in terms of human lives and lost property often are followed by a period of intense policy discussions about how to prevent these events in the future, creating a window of opportunity during recovery for regulatory changes (Birkmann et al., 2010, p. 5²³). Recovery efforts often take place in the context of heightened public awareness and investment, which create favorable conditions for regulatory and planning reforms (Davies et al., 2018). However, recovery planning faces significant challenges, particularly in the WUI, where risks are amplified by increasing population density, sprawling development, and inadequate infrastructure (Chase, 2015²⁴; McWethy et al., 2019). Many recovery processes prioritize rapid rebuilding, which frequently results in replicating pre-disaster vulnerabilities rather than addressing underlying risk factors (Mockrin et al., 2015²⁵; Paveglio et al., 2015²⁶).

Integration of Land Use Planning in Wildfire Recovery

Land use planning has long been recognized as a key tool for mitigating risks associated with natural hazards. Research has demonstrated that zoning regulations, building codes, and subdivision guidelines can significantly reduce disaster vulnerabilities by influencing development patterns and construction practices (Burby et al., 2000; Ge & Lindell, 2016). Zoning, for example, restricts development in high-risk areas, while building codes enforce the use of fire-resistant materials and defensible space requirements (Calkin et al., 2015; Quarles et al., 2010²⁷). Case studies provide examples of successful integration of land use planning into wildfire recovery. For instance, Sonoma County, California, implemented a “Recovery and Resiliency Framework” after the 2017 wildfires, prioritizing land use strategies such as specialized permitting processes and community-driven planning (County of Sonoma, 2018²⁸; Oregon Chapter American Planning Association, 2021²⁹). Similarly, the Lake Tahoe Basin has combined zoning, building codes, and subdivision regulations to mitigate wildfire risks, demonstrating the potential for integrated approaches (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2021³⁰; Tahoe Living with Fire, 2024³¹).

The integration of land use planning into wildfire recovery has been identified as a promising approach for building resilient communities, yet it remains underutilized. Mockrin et al. (2020) found that recovery plans rarely include land use strategies, instead prioritizing short-term rebuilding efforts. McIver et al. (2021) highlighted that proactive measures, such as zoning adjustments and stricter building codes, are often overlooked due to political and institutional barriers.

While the benefits of land use planning in wildfire recovery are increasingly recognized, significant gaps remain. First, there is limited empirical research on the extent to which land use strategies are integrated into recovery plans across diverse contexts. Most studies focus on individual case studies, making it difficult to identify broader trends and generalizable insights (Steelman & Burke, 2007; Mockrin et al., 2020). Second, little is known about the factors that influence the adoption of land use planning in wildfire recovery. While governance structures, community characteristics, and policy environments are believed to play a role, their specific impacts remain underexplored (Paveglio et al., 2015). Existing research underscores the critical role of land use planning in wildfire mitigation and recovery but reveals substantial gaps in its implementation and effectiveness. This study sought to address these gaps by systematically evaluating the integration of land use strategies into wildfire recovery plans and identifying the factors that facilitate or hinder their adoption.

Research Questions

This research aimed to answer two key questions:

• To what extent are land use strategies integrated into wildfire recovery plans in the Western region?
• What policy, community, and institutional factors influence the integration of these strategies into wildfire recovery planning?

Research Design

The study employed a mixed-method research design to explore wildfire management in Western states, with a particular emphasis on community- and city-level strategies. Mixed methods achieve the depth of qualitative inquiry while also allowing for the breadth and generalizability of quantitative analysis (Labossière & McGee, 2017³²; Paul & Milman, 2017³³; Mockrin et al., 2020).

The study was conducted in two parts. Part one involved a document review and content analysis of 15 community-level wildfire recovery plans from California, Colorado, Oregon, and Hawaii. The decision to limit the analysis to these four states stemmed from the challenges we encountered in trying to obtain comprehensive recovery plans from communities impacted by wildfires. Many of these communities lack formal documentation of recovery-related initiatives and strategies. Part two of the research project built upon the findings from part one by conducting key informant interviews with stakeholders involved in wildfire mitigation and recovery efforts, including officials from Paradise and Malibu, California; Louisville and Superior, Colorado; and Phoenix, Oregon These interviews aimed to gain practical insights and field-level perspectives on recovery processes, challenges, and successes.

Study Site and Access

Table 1 provides an overview of the study sites, detailing the states, counties, communities, and wildfire events included in the analysis . It also lists the 12 recovery plans that we reviewed for the following 15 cities/communities: the Town of Paradise, California (2022³⁴); Plumas County, California (2022³⁵); Sonoma County, California (2018); Ventura County, California (2018³⁶); City of Louisville, Colorado (2022³⁷); Louisville and Superior, Colorado (Urban Land Institute, 2023³⁸); Jackson County, Oregon (Governor’s Wildfire Economic Recovery Council, 2021³⁹); City of Detroit, Oregon (2021⁴⁰); City of Gates, Oregon (2021⁴¹); Santiam Canyon, Oregon (Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association, 2021⁴²); McKenzie River Valley, Oregon (Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association, 2022⁴³); and Maui County (Building Science Disaster Support, 2024⁴⁴).

Table 1. Study Sites and Associated Wildfire Events

The social contexts of these sites are varied, encompassing rural, urban, and mixed-use communities- areas where residential, commercial, and civic functions are co-located- each with differing levels of economic resources and institutional capacity (Thomas et al., 2022⁴⁵). While some communities are relatively affluent, others include populations with limited financial means, reflecting the socioeconomic disparities that influence recovery outcomes (Davies et al., 2018; Baker et al., 2024⁴⁶). These sites also represent a spectrum of wildfire impacts, ranging from complete community destruction to targeted damage, allowing for an analysis of varying recovery strategies and their effectiveness.

Document Review

Document Selection Process

We created a comprehensive list of significant wildfires from 2014 to 2023. For each wildfire event, we systematically reviewed secondary documents, news reports, and white papers from federal and state government and non-federal sources in order to identify cities, towns, and other incorporated areas impacted by the wildfires. After identifying these localities, we searched their websites for recovery plans. A total of 15 recovery plans from California, Colorado, Oregon, and Hawaii were collected from local government websites, limited to documents published in PDF format.

Coding Protocol

We designed a coding protocol with five categories of land use planning strategies that can be used for wildfire mitigation: (a) building regulations, (b) vegetation management, (c) subdivision regulations, (d) zoning regulations, and (e) preventative land use strategies. Across the five categories, we identified a total of 23 indicator codes. As explained further below, we used these indicators during content analysis to evaluate the extent to which localities have integrated each category of land use approaches to wildfire mitigation into their recovery plans. The protocol was based on hazard plan quality literature (Godschalk et al., 1999⁴⁷; Brody, 2003⁴⁸; Lyles et al., 2014⁴⁹) and a conceptual framework for land use-based wildfire planning from a prior study (Isaba et al., 2024⁵⁰). Table 2 provides operational definitions of each category and lists its indicators.

Table 2. Content Analysis Protocol

Content Analysis and Scoring

We coded each indicator in the recovery plans using a binary system: “1” when the indicator was present in the document and “0” when it was absent. Next, we created two scores to assess the degree to which the land use categories were integrated into each recovery plan:

1. The mean score indicates the average level of integration of a given land-use category across all recovery plans in the sample. For each category (e.g., building regulations, vegetation management), we averaged the binary codes assigned to each plan (0 = absent, 1 = present). This yields a descriptive, cross-plan measure of how commonly that category appears.
2. The composite score, which is an aggregated index that combines all land use strategy indicators across categories into a single normalized value, providing an overall measure of the extent to which each recovery plan incorporates land use strategies. The composite land use planning score was calculated for each recovery plan by first summing the binary indicators across the five strategy categories, which yielded raw plan scores ranging from 6 to 20. To enable comparison across plans, these raw scores were normalized using a Min-Max rescaling procedure, which transformed the values onto a standardized 0-5 scale. On this scale, On this scale, 0 represents minimal integration of land use strategies (e.g., few or no land use categories addressed), while 5 represents maximum integration (e.g., all five categories consistently incorporated).

Key Informant Interviews

Sampling

The document review activity was complemented by 15 key informant interviews with diverse stakeholders from California, Colorado, and Oregon. Participants came from Paradise, CA (n=6); Louisville and Superior, CO (n=6); and Phoenix, OR (n=2). Additionally, although Malibu, CA, lacked a recovery plan and was not included in the document review, one informant from the city was interviewed and provided insights into its socio-economic dynamics. Informants included local government officials such as council members, community development directors, recovery and economic development directors, resilience officers, planners, recovery program coordinators, recovery managers, and representatives from nonprofit organizations. The team identified interviewees through web searches of local government websites, wildfire reports, and snowballing.

Interview Protocol

The research team conducted interviews via Zoom or over the phone, based on participants’ preferences and availability, between September and November 2024. All interviews were voluntary and followed the requirements specified by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Utah. Participants provided verbal and written consent, and the team recorded and transcribed the interviews with their approval to ensure accuracy. The semi-structured, open-ended interviews explored wildfire recovery actions following recent fires, the role of land use planning in the recovery process, reasons for its inclusion or exclusion, and decision-making during recovery. Participants also discussed the feasibility of land use-based wildfire recovery planning within the communities they work with.

Interview Data Analysis Procedures

The team transcribed interview data using the “close” or “attentive” listening technique (Bauer, 1996, p. 5⁵¹), which involved repeated listening to audio recordings, identifying key themes and concepts, and selectively transcribing relevant portions. The team then conducted a thematic analysis by coding the transcripts for recurring concepts related to policy, community dynamics, financial challenges, and recovery strategies. During transcription, the team documented initial codes in field memos and analytic notes, and through iterative comparison, organized these codes into broader categories. Representative excerpts were retained to illustrate the themes, ensuring consistency across transcripts.

Ethical Considerations and Researcher Positionality

We approached ethical considerations in two primary ways during this study. The first involved minimizing the potential burden on communities in California, Colorado, Oregon, and Hawaii affected by wildfires. To address this, the research team adhered to Institutional Review Board protocols and prioritized secondary data collection from public sources, such as wildfire recovery plans. Primary data collection was limited to interviews with professionals in planning, recovery, and emergency management, focusing on their organizational roles rather than individual experiences. This approach avoided imposing undue strain on wildfire-affected residents. The second consideration centered on protecting participant confidentiality, especially given the specific geographic and topical focus of this research on wildfire recovery and land use planning. To ensure anonymity, the study reports only broad classifications of participant roles, such as planners or recovery managers, while excluding names and organizational affiliations. These measures align with ethical standards and safeguard the privacy of those contributing to the research.

Findings

Integration of Land Use Strategies in Wildfire Recovery Planning

In this study, integration refers to the extent to which each land use planning category is addressed in a recovery plan, Table 3 presents the basic summary statistics for the five land use planning categories and the composite land use planning scores, including mean values, standard deviations, and ranges. Preventive land use management strategies show the lowest mean score (1.8), while subdivision regulations have the highest mean score (3.33), indicating that these measures were included in relatively few recovery plans, while subdivision regulations have the highest mean score (3.33), reflecting more frequent use. Based on these category-level patterns, the composite scores provide a holistic picture of plan integration across all categories. The composite score, which captures the overall land use planning integration, ranges from 6 to 20. Our analysis revealed that Santa Rosa in California achieved the maximum composite score of 20, followed by Paradise, California, with a score of 17. In contrast, the lowest composite score (6) was observed in the McKenzie River Valley community in Oregon. These results highlight substantial variability in the integration of land use planning strategies across the studied communities.

Table 3. Summary Statistics of the Land Use Planning Scores

Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of wildfire recovery plans in relation to five specified categories of land use planning interventions. Each category—building regulations, vegetation management, subdivision regulations, zoning regulations, and preventative land use management strategies—is broken down by three levels of integration based on the category-wise normalized scores: high (score is greater than 0.75), medium (score is greater than 0.25 and less than or equal to 0.75), or low (score is less than 0.25). The graph suggests that some land use planning strategies, such as subdivision regulations and vegetation management, are commonly integrated into recovery plans. Others, however, are less often adopted, especially preventative strategies such as buyouts or community relocation. This finding is also reflected in the average scores presented in Table 3.

Figure 1. Distribution of Wildfire Recovery Plans by Level of Integration Across Land Use Planning Categories

The high integration of subdivision regulations across wildfire recovery plans reflects the comprehensive and critical nature of the indicators within this category. The indicators within subdivision regulations include evacuation access and transportation, water availability, open space standards, lot and block design, development patterns, and homeowners’ association (HOA) wildfire regulations. In post-fire scenarios, many recovery plans prioritize improving accessibility. For instance, the City of Detroit in Oregon emphasizes widening roads by removing vegetation that obstructs emergency vehicles. Restoration of utilities, including water availability, is another significant aspect of recovery efforts. Some recovery plans highlight the importance of protecting and maintaining open spaces. For example, Santa Rosa and Sonoma Valley in California prioritize acquisitions and easements for open space lands that enhance ecological resilience and reduce fire hazards. Development patterns also emerge as a key focus. Many recovery plans in California (e.g., Sonoma, Santa Rosa, Geyserville) emphasize avoiding urban sprawl and directing growth toward safer, low-risk areas. Similarly, the recovery plan for Superior, Colorado, promotes mixed-use development in town centers. Louisville and Superior both incorporate the role of HOAs in enforcing wildfire safety measures, ensuring that private developments align with fire mitigation strategies.

Vegetation management plays a significant role in recovery processes, focusing on creating defensible spaces and implementing fuel reduction initiatives such as chipping programs in burn areas. For instance, in Maui, Hawaii, wildfire recovery plans include guidance on landscaping practices and implementing hazardous fuel reduction treatments on private properties. Our review finds that most recovery plans achieve zoning scores by incorporating maps that delineate high-risk wildfire zones and formulating specific strategies for these areas, meeting the criterion for "delineation of high-risk zones." However, aspects like regulating land use and controlling density under zoning regulations are less frequently addressed. For building regulations, most communities show medium integration (seven recovery plans), with a focus on fire-resistant construction materials and designs.

Preventative land use management strategies, such as buyouts, community relocations, and Transfer/Planned Development Rights (TDR/PDR) schemes (tools that shift development potential from hazard-prone parcels to safer areas), show relatively higher levels of integration across recovery plans, with eight communities incorporating these measures at a medium level. This higher integration reflects how post-fire recovery contexts created momentum for using such strategies. For instance, recovery plans in Ventura and Greenville, California, introduced concepts like “Retreat” and “Nodes” to consolidate housing into safer, denser areas, contingent on residents’ acceptance of buyouts. Similarly, Santa Rosa’s recovery plans encouraged some relocation to non-WUI areas, such as Chico, relying on buyout or TDR programs to reduce exposure in risk-prone zones. Overall, these plans also discussed incentive programs to facilitate community-scale adoption of preventative land use strategies.

Factors Influencing the Land Use Planning Integration

Thematic analysis of the transcribed data revealed five major factors influencing the adoption of land use strategies in wildfire recovery planning: (a) policy constraints and institutional frameworks; (b) financial challenges and economic realities; (c) logistics and practical challenges; (d) community perception and social dynamics; and (e) long-term recovery as a continuous process.

Policy Constraints and Institutional Frameworks

Policy frameworks play a decisive role in shaping recovery plans. Interviewees consistently highlighted the adoption of WUI codes and building codes, which enforce fire-resistant materials and design practices during rebuilding efforts. As one local government official from Paradise mentioned, “the biggest changes we could implement were through building codes, landscaping regulations, and other replacement requirements.” However, zoning adjustments and broader land use changes face significant limitations due to jurisdictional and geographic challenges. For instance, in the town of Paradise, the entire community lies within a high fire hazard zone, leaving no inherently safer areas for rezoning.

Jurisdictional limitations also affect the implementation of land use strategies. Vegetation management beyond municipal boundaries, such as on state or federal lands, remains outside the control of local governments. One local official from Phoenix, Oregon, explained, “when it comes to broader-scale vegetation management, like fuel breaks, that’s not under the city’s jurisdiction. Those areas are often state or federal land, so we can’t manage them directly.” It reflects the challenges of jurisdictional boundaries and the interplay between city actions and broader state or federal responsibilities.

Financial Challenges and Economic Realities

Financial constraints significantly limit the scope of land use integration in wildfire recovery. The high cost of implementing recovery measures, combined with delayed funding, poses barriers for both governments and residents. One planner in Boulder highlighted, “funding is one of the biggest challenges. Everything comes at a cost, whether it’s wildfire buffers, road repairs, or utilities.” Delays in grant approvals, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, have exacerbated these issues. Insurance affordability adds another layer of complexity. Many residents face dramatic increases in premiums, making rebuilding financially unfeasible. Despite efforts to incentivize fire safety through insurance discounts, reductions are often minimal, as one local official noted in Malibu: “A lot of people simply can’t get insurance, or if they can, it’s so expensive they can’t afford it.”

Logistical and Practical Challenges

Community relocation or managed retreat is rarely discussed in the context of wildfires, as it is perceived as a highly sensitive and politically risky topic. In Paradise and Malibu, the entire town lies in a high fire hazard zone, making relocation ineffective. As one planner in Paradise noted, “relocation or managed retreat was never a conversation for us.” Other areas also face resistance to managed retreat, with politicians avoiding the topic due to public backlash and reelection concerns.

Managed retreat also faces significant funding and logistical barriers, including the absence of clear financing mechanisms, such as state-level buyout programs, and the impracticality of relocating affluent communities in places like Malibu. A Boulder County official remarked, “Without larger state structures, I don’t think we’ll get there. There doesn’t seem to be the political will.” Instead, many communities emphasize community education and voluntary compliance through HOA as a more viable approach.

Community Perceptions and Social Dynamics

After major fires, such as the Camp Fire, community support for safety measures tends to surge due to the immediate impact of the disaster. Participatory tools, such as community feedback mechanisms using red and green stickers, were highlighted as successful in engaging residents. Participatory tools, such as community feedback mechanisms using red and green stickers during in-person community events, were highlighted as successful in engaging residents. For example, one Paradise official explained that residents placed stickers to indicate agreement (green) or disagreement (red) with proposed recovery strategies, making input highly visible and accessible during meetings. They also added, “right after the Camp Fire, there was overwhelming support for fire safety measures because the disaster was fresh in everyone’s minds.”

However, sustaining support becomes increasingly challenging over time. As new residents move in and the memory of the wildfire fades, regulatory measures can face resistance. I In Paradise, for instance, a participant observed that “even after the Camp Fire, people wanted to rebuild and return to their properties,” illustrating how the desire to rebuild often outweighed support for measures like retreat or stricter land use restrictions.

Long-Term Recovery as a Continuous Process

Recovery is widely acknowledged as a long-term process requiring sustained efforts and adaptability. A nonprofit representative in Boulder noted:

What’s most important to us is not just that we recover and rebuild, but that we do so in a way that honors the place where we live—not only our natural environment but also the understanding that this is a fire-prone area.

Efforts to concentrate development in safer zones, such as town centers, and avoid high-density zoning in fire-prone areas, reflect a forward-looking approach to recovery. However, balancing immediate rebuilding needs with long-term resilience goals requires careful coordination across multiple stakeholders. Strategies like mixed-use development in Superior, Colorado, or incentivizing open space preservation in Sonoma, California, demonstrate how recovery plans can align short-term actions with broader sustainability objectives.

Conclusions

Implications for Policy and Practice

The findings reveal differing levels of integration for land use planning strategies in wildfire recovery, with subdivision regulations and vegetation management emerging as the most widely implemented measures. These strategies are practical and align directly with wildfire risk mitigation goals, focusing on evacuation access, utility restoration, and defensible space creation.

By contrast, more transformative approaches, such as zoning changes and preventative strategies remain limited due to political, financial, and practical challenges. Managed retreat, in particular, faces resistance as it conflicts with residents' desire to rebuild and is perceived as politically risky by leaders in government. Participants from Paradise and Malibu echoed these concerns, emphasizing the importance of balancing property rights with long-term resilience. The lack of clear funding mechanisms further complicates the implementation of such strategies. These findings suggest a critical policy implication: without stronger institutional support, such as state-level funding mechanisms, clear legal frameworks, and communication strategies to build public trust, local governments may be unable to advance zoning reforms or managed retreat, even when communities recognize the long-term wildfire risks. Strengthening these institutional supports would directly address the political, financial, and practical barriers identified by participants, making it more feasible to implement preventative land use strategies in recovery planning.

Community perceptions also significantly influence land use planning integration. While initial post-fire support for fire safety measures is strong, sustaining engagement over time proves challenging as new residents enter the community and memories of the disaster fade. Financial constraints, such as rising insurance premiums and delayed grant funding, further limit recovery efforts, often prioritizing cost management over resilience These findings suggest that recovery plans must evolve to provide a more comprehensive and practical guide for post-disaster rebuilding, one that not only addresses immediate reconstruction but also integrates long-term resilience measures. A more “comprehensive and practical” plan would include clearer implementation timelines, funding mechanisms, and guidance on balancing short-term cost constraints with long-term wildfire risk reduction.

Finally, the findings point to the need for more formalized and integrated recovery planning. Many recovery plans remain informal or fragmented compared to mitigation or preparedness plans. Advancing recovery planning as a formalized process would help ensure comprehensive documentation of strategies and reduce the current inconsistencies across communities. Coordinated efforts among local, state, and federal agencies are particularly important for vegetation management, where jurisdictional challenges often impede implementation. Financial incentives, such as enhanced insurance discounts for compliance with fire-safe building codes, could also alleviate household financial burdens and encourage adoption of resilient practices.

Limitations

The study’s geographic scope was limited to four states and relied on recovery plans and interviews from a select group of communities. Expanding interviews to include additional areas would provide more diverse perspectives and insights. The availability of recovery plans was another limitation, as many communities lack formalized plans or do not document building regulations and other critical strategies within recovery plans.

Another limitation of this study is the inconsistent treatment of building codes across data sources. While the document review showed only medium integration, interview participants consistently emphasized building codes as a critical recovery measure. This disparity likely reflects the fact that building measures are often excluded from recovery plans and addressed instead through separate regulatory documents. As a result, relying on recovery plans alone may obscure the central role of building codes in wildfire recovery and lead to their importance being underrepresented relative to other land use strategies.

The divergence between findings from interviews and document reviews further emphasizes this point. For instance, document reviews highlighted the significance of preventative land use strategies, such as managed retreat or buyouts. In contrast, these strategies were less emphasized during interviews. This discrepancy may be attributed to the fact that recovery planning in many communities remains informal or poorly documented. Recovery plans often lack the structure and comprehensiveness seen in mitigation or preparedness plans, indicating that recovery planning as a discipline is still maturing. This underscores the importance of looking beyond formal documentation to understand the broader recovery landscape.

Future Research Directions

To address the limited availability of recovery plans, future research will include a survey of local officials, planners, and other stakeholders to gain a broader understanding of land use planning integration in wildfire recovery. Comparative analyses across regions with diverse socioeconomic and environmental conditions, as well as collaborations with practitioners to develop innovative land use policies, are also recommended for future work.

Author Acknowledgments. The research team expresses gratitude to the University of Utah, the Natural Hazards Center, and local government officials from California, Colorado, and Oregon for their invaluable insights and participation, which made this study possible.

References