Editor’s note: Tiernan Doyle is FAC Net’s Strategy Director. In this blog, Tiernan recaps a series of conversations hosted by FAC Net and the Climigration Network on wildfire recovery and displacement.

Wildfire impacts on communities are deep, multifaceted, and long-lasting. As fires grow in size, speed, and complexity, communities across the U.S. are being pushed into difficult, high-stakes decisions. The whole community, from individuals to local government, large landowners, planners, natural resource professionals, and everyone in between are grappling with rebuilding costs, insurance hurdles, population loss, and a thousand changes to the places they love. This reality can be traumatizing and exhausting—but it can also spark renewed commitment to place, to each other, and to long-term stewardship of land and community.

Understanding Community Displacement After Fire

Displacement caused by wildfire is complex. It can mean the temporary evacuation of residents, or it can mean permanent loss when rebuilding becomes unaffordable or insurance support falls through. Displacement can also stem from fear—families moving away preemptively to avoid future fire risks—or from market dynamics that push long-time residents out.

Only recently have researchers begun to analyze and quantify post-fire displacement. Experts like Crystal Kolden, Nicole Lambrou, and Kathryn McConnell are helping to build a clearer picture using new data tools. Their research underscores a stark trend: with more structures destroyed by fire each year, more people are forced to relocate—and many cannot return.

This raises important questions. What systemic gaps and non-fire drivers are making community displacement more likely? And what policies or systems can help mitigate those risks before and after disaster strikes?

Dialogues on Displacement: FAC Net and the Climigration Network

To explore these questions, the Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network (FAC Net) partnered with the Climigration Network to host a series of expert dialogues on wildfire recovery and displacement. The Climigration Network focuses on community-led responses to climate displacement. They are partnering with communities responding to sea level rise and chronic flooding. Pairing this with FAC Net’s focus on supporting wildfire resilient communities allowed for rich comparisons—and revealed overlaps, such as displacement triggered by post-fire flooding. It also highlighted models used in the wildfire context that might be beneficial to adapt to the flood context. 

Our dialogues convened experts from six Western states with high wildfire risk. Participants came from state and local government, academia, nonprofit and community organizations, and the private sector. Their collective expertise spanned the entire wildfire cycle—from emergency response to planning, case management, and long-term recovery. Our goals for these conversations were twofold: 1) Define key policy or research topics that relate to wildfire displacement that we could collectively address that resonate with community members, local officials and subject matter experts. 2) Create relationships and pathways for more in depth discussions on specific topics most relevant to the group.

Across two sessions in January 2025, the group explored key questions:

• What challenges are communities facing as they respond to wildfire displacement?
• What support systems are missing or underdeveloped?
• How does wildfire displacement compare to flood-related relocation?
• What long-term strategies could reduce displacement and promote recovery?
  

Key Themes and Learning Outcomes

1. Fragmented Recovery Authorities

Participants repeatedly highlighted the lack of clear authority during recovery. Many agencies and organizations are involved, but no single entity is tasked with leading throughout the entire process from planning to long-term community support.

Key Questions: 

• What are the key gaps in decision-making for recovery?
• How do we fill those gaps in a flexible way that can adapt temporally and at scale to the changing needs of recovery operations? 

Areas for Exploration:

• Designate and fund long-term recovery group structures at the community or regional level. These groups can lead planning efforts and coordinate response throughout the fire cycle—not just in the immediate aftermath.

2. Cyclical Planning for Repeated Fire Impacts

Current planning and funding systems are not built for communities experiencing repeated burns. Recovery efforts often restart from scratch, and rural areas in particular face chronic under-resourcing.

Key Questions:

• How can we integrate recovery planning into every stage of community development?
• How do we ensure recovery efforts align across agencies and scales?

Areas for Exploration:

• Expand financial and technical support for comprehensive recovery planning. Communities with formal recovery plans fare better during response and reconstruction.
• Build and maintain relationships among recovery partners before disasters hit. Most recovery collaboration is ad hoc; pre-established networks make coordination faster and more inclusive.
• Identify potential unmet needs in advance. Aligning recovery planning with other assessments can help anticipate and address gaps.

3. The Missing Recovery Workforce

Recovery is not just a short-term emergency response—it’s a years-long process that requires a specialized workforce. From damage assessors to case managers to local finance officers, recovery roles often go undefined, unsupported, or unstaffed.

Key Questions:

• How do we sustain recovery jobs over time, especially in rural or low-capacity communities?
• How can agencies work across silos to strengthen recovery outcomes?

Areas for Exploration:

• Develop cross-sector recovery roles that can transition throughout the fire cycle—from emergency response to restoration.
• Support local governments in creating continuity plans and recovery departments, particularly within emergency management offices.
• Embed recovery readiness in existing positions, from community health workers to land stewards.

4. Survivor-Led Recovery

Not everyone experiences disaster the same way. Needs shift over time and differ across populations. But recovery responses are often generic and short-lived, failing to adapt or address long-term trauma, inequity, and instability. In our current systems we see socioeconomic status significantly shape post-fire outcomes, and emerging vulnerabilities—like long-term health issues or job loss—are poorly tracked and addressed.

Key Questions:

• How do we empower local organizations to deliver sustained support post-disaster?
• How can systems adapt to support different socioeconomic realities and respond to emerging vulnerabilities?

Areas for Exploration:

• Rethink case management systems to provide more flexible, long-term support.
• Normalize mental health care as a core part of recovery services.
• Support community-based organizations in developing and implementing continuity of operations plans so they are able to continue delivering needed services and create surge capacity as needed.

Reflections and What Comes Next

These dialogues made it clear: community displacement after wildfire is not an isolated event. It’s a long, often invisible process shaped by policy, systems, capacity, and resource constraints. The collective expertise of our group helped surface practical gaps—and pointed to areas where more strategic investment could make a lasting difference.

As next steps, FAC Net and the Climigration Network will continue working with this group to identify shared priorities and co-develop tools or initiatives that can strengthen recovery systems and reduce displacement risk.

While the realities of wildfire recovery can feel daunting, this work also revealed something else: immense possibility. With the right conversations, planning, and partnerships, we can help communities not only recover—but rebuild with resilience, purpose, and shared stewardship for people and place.

****