Regulations requiring removal of nearly all plants within a 5-foot perimeter around homes—may oversimplify wildfire safety and inadvertently undermine it. As wildfire scientists Max Moritz (UC Santa Barbara) and Luca Carmignani (San Diego State) argue, “well-maintained plants and trees can help protect homes from wind-blown embers and slow the spread of fire,” and outright prohibition risks discarding valuable natural defenses Los Angeles Times.

Wildfire scientist Jon Keeley of the U.S. Geological Survey warns that in wind-driven fires, homes themselves become the primary fuel, not the surrounding vegetation. He emphasizes that once embers are airborne, “fuels are definitely not relevant… because the primary fuels are the homes” LAist. This underscores a crucial shift in perspective: rather than blanket vegetation removal, fire safety strategies should prioritize home hardening, ember-resistant construction, and community-wide preparedness. By treating homes—and not just landscapes—as the core of fire risk, we can better tailor regulations to protect structures, firefighters, and neighborhoods in real-world wildfire scenarios.

Modeling studies show that removing vegetation can disrupt microclimates—by opening up the canopy, increasing solar heating, wind penetration, and drying of fuels—which paradoxically may create more favorable conditions for fire ignition and spread Springer Open. Researchers note that vegetation’s role in fire safety extends beyond fuel removal; it influences airflow, humidity, and shading in nuanced ways that rigid removal mandates fail to capture. Without integrating these ecological interdependencies, regulations risk causing long-term environmental harm with limited gains in actual fire resilience.