Gibbons, PhilipGill, A MalcomShore, NicholasMoritz, Max A.Dovers, StephenCary, Geoffrey2019-04-080169-2046http://hdl.handle.net/1885/159338Removing vegetation close to houses is at the forefront of advice provided to home owners by fire management agencies. However, widespread clearing of trees and shrubs near houses impacts aesthetics, privacy, biodiversity, energy consumption and property values. Thus, stakeholders may oppose this practice. Regulators and property owners therefore require options for vegetation management that reduce risk to houses during wildfires without complete removal of trees and shrubs. Using data from 499 houses impacted by wildfires, we tested three hypotheses: (1) maintaining ‘green’ vegetation affords houses additional protection during wildfires; (2) risk posed by trees and shrubs near houses is reduced where they are arranged as many discrete patches; and (3) trees and shrubs retained in the upwind direction from which wildfires arrive represent greater risk to houses than trees and shrubs retained in the downwind direction. We found empirical support for each hypothesis. Increasing the mean Normalised Vegetation Difference Index (NDVI) (a measure of “greenness”) of vegetation near houses had the same effect on reducing house losses as removing some trees and shrubs. Trees and shrubs within 40 m of houses arranged as many discrete patches posed less risk than the same cover of trees and shrubs arranged as few discrete patches. Trees and shrubs retained downwind from houses represented less risk than trees and shrubs retained upwind. Our findings represent options for regulators or home owners seeking to balance risk posed by wildfires with benefits associated with retaining trees and shrubs near houses.application/pdfen-AU201810.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.02.0102019-03-12