The economic benefits of prescribed burning across Australia

Improved economic efficiencies in fire management

Evidence from Australia and the USA shows that mitigation consistently outperforms suppression‑dominant strategies. The Menzies Research Centre (2020) notes that "one dollar spent on mitigation can save at least two dollars in recovery costs." Western Australian studies show that prescribed burning delivers the strongest economic benefit in forested regions, while planning measures combined with burning reduce high‑hazard exposure in peri‑urban areas.

Some US case studies demonstrate even higher returns. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Allstate found that each dollar invested in disaster preparation saves $13 in avoided damage and cleanup.

Strabo et al. (2026) found that fuel treatments prevented $2.8 billion in damages across 11 western states, delivering $3.73 in benefits per dollar invested. UC Davis (2026) reported that treatments reduced burned area by 36%, prevented thousands of building losses and avoided major emissions and health impacts. Hjerpe et al. (2024) found returns up to 600% in high‑value watersheds.

Suppression efficiency, safety and cost effectiveness

Prescribed burning improves suppression effectiveness by moderating fire behaviour, reducing flame depth, slowing rate of spread and reducing spotting. It also reduces suppression force needs, shortens control time and provides tactical advantages such as anchor points, safer backburning zones and improved access and egress.

US examples reinforce these findings. The 2021 Dixie Fire cost nearly $700 million in suppression, with analysts noting that a fraction of that investment in thinning and burning could have prevented catastrophic outcomes. Strabo and Reime (2026) found that fuel treatments reduce federal firefighting expenditures by $5–$6 per dollar invested.

Consumer savings

Prescribed burning reduces insurance costs, emergency services levies and stamp duties by lowering disaster risk. Rising insurance premiums across Australia reflect escalating bushfire and flood losses. The review highlights the need for stronger accountability and more effective mitigation to stabilise household and business costs. Deloitte Access Economics (2013) identifies additional cost‑effective measures such as resilient housing (BCR 1.4), improved vegetation management (BCR 1.3) and undergrounding powerlines (BCR up to 3.1).

Cumulative benefits

Prescribed burning delivers multiple economic, ecological and social benefits. As AFAC (2021) notes, it is a vital land‑management tool that enhances ecosystem resilience, reduces disaster‑recovery needs, improves suppression efficiency and stabilises government budgets. The review concludes that Australia must shift decisively from reactive disaster spending to proactive, landscape‑scale mitigation to secure enduring economic, social and environmental returns.