Stop blaming plants. Start protecting homes & people
We’re losing the landscapes we love in the name of wildfire safety. It’s time for a smarter approach.
The Problem
California's wildfire policies are changing the landscapes around our homes.
Across the state, homeowners are being encouraged—and in some cases required—to remove healthy trees, shrubs, and other vegetation in the belief that less vegetation automatically means safer homes.
The science tells a different story.❋
Nearly all wildfires are started by people, not plants. Once fires reach urban and suburban neighborhoods, research from recent urban fire disasters has found that factors such as building density, home vulnerabilities, ember exposure, and structure-to-structure fire spread are stronger predictors of home loss than the mere presence of healthy vegetation.
Healthy landscapes provide shade, cooling, wildlife habitat, erosion control, and countless other benefits. Yet they are increasingly being treated as liabilities rather than assets.
The real challenge isn't choosing between protecting homes and protecting nature. It's learning how to do both.
The Solution
Fire safety powered by science. Our homes and landscapes can be both beautiful and better prepared for wildfire. We don't have to choose between protecting our communities and protecting nature.
A safer home begins with understanding how homes actually burn. Research points to a broader picture than vegetation—one that includes home maintenance, ember-resistant construction, healthy landscapes, and the way neighborhoods are designed and maintained.
Every homeowner can make informed choices that reduce risk without unnecessarily removing the trees, shrubs, and gardens that provide shade, cooling, habitat, protection, privacy and the character of our communities.
Create a Safer Garden by focusing on what matters most: maintain healthy landscapes, reduce unnecessary hazards, strengthen your home, and let science—not fear—guide your decisions. We can protect both homes and nature.
❋
New Research
“ Low moisture and bare ground cover are associated with higher risk of building loss, while vegetation - particularly when it provides shade - is associated with lower building loss”
- Dr. Francisco Escobedo, U.S. Forest Service
Understanding the evidence. Peer-reviewed research explained in plain English to help homeowners, communities, and policymakers make informed decisions.
Science Library
Start Exploring
Why is California Losing Its Native Chaparral To More Flammable Landscapes?
Key Finding: Researchers found that the biggest driver of chaparral loss in California is not a lack of prescribed fire—it is fires occurring too frequently.When chaparral burns repeatedly before it has time to recover, it is often replaced by flammable weed-lands or non-native flammable grasses. Those grasses ignite more easily, spread fire faster, and can create a cycle of more frequent fires.
— Syphard, A. D., Rustigian-Romsos, H., Schrader-Patton, C., & Underwood, E. C. (2026) Cal Poly Study Finds Building Density Was Strongest Predictor of Home Loss in 2025 LA Fires, not trees?
Key Finding: This study found that how closely homes are built together was far more important than where trees were located in predicting whether homes burned. In both the Eaton and Palisades fires structure density was by far the strongest predictor of structure loss.
— Kenny, R., Johns, J., Pawlak, C., Fricker, A., Yost, J., Ritter, M., & Maher, A. (2026)Does Plant Condition Matter More Than Plant Presence?
Key Finding: Researchers found that homes surrounded by healthier, more hydrated plants had better survival rates than homes surrounded by dry, drought-stressed plants. The study suggests that the condition of plants—not simply whether plants are present—can influence structure loss. The study also found that building characteristics and neighborhood density are important factors in wildfire losses.
— Escobedo, F. J., et al. (2025)Can lightly hydrated native plants around homes reduce structure loss?
Key Finding: Native plants that received a small amount of irrigation stayed healthier and burned less intensely than native plants that had no irrigation and were trimmed and thinned. They also continued to provide wildlife habitat and other ecological benefits.
— Keeley, J.E., Rubin, G., Brennan, T., & Piffard, B. (2020)Articles & Insights
What Zone 0 Influencers Say About the Problem with Zone 0 in Private
Emails (May 2025) between a California Board of Forestry Zone 0 Committee member, Berkeley Fire Department Assistant Chief Dave Winnacker and a Cal Poly fire institute director — both active in the Zone 0 marketplace — offers a rare look inside the policymaking process that is reshaping wildfire regulations in our yards. Read More →
Do Zone 0 Homes Really Fare Better?
Reality-testing wildfire policy, media narratives, and official claims. An LA Times article draws on recent insurance industry claims that homes with a cleared “Zone 0” were less likely to burn in the Eaton and Palisades fires—and suggests this supports California’s proposed Zone 0 mandate. Let’s pause and reality-test that claim. Read More →
“State Parks Provided Kindling” — A Claim In Search of Proof.
The headline in this article from Circling the News, “State Parks Provided Kindling for the January 7 Fire” makes a definitive accusation. The problem is simple: The article never proves it. It substitutes proximity, insinuation, and tone for evidence — and that matters, because it shifts blame from decision-making failures to conservation staff without meeting even a basic factual standard. Read More →
Los Angeles Homeowner & Resident Organizations Reject Proposed Zone 0 Regulation
Urge the Board of Forestry to adopt science-based, locally informed fire-safety policy that reflects urban fire risk .