Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42120679›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Wildfire risk to United States cultural resources.

Mona M Farnisa, Benjamin S Halpern, Caitlin R Fong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mona M FarnisaNational Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106, USA.
Benjamin S HalpernNational Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106, USA.
Caitlin R FongNational Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106, USA. fong@nceas.ucsb.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wildfire research and management typically emphasize risks to ecosystems and infrastructure, especially homes. Yet, communities and countries designate certain places and structures as culturally important for all; because they are often immovable and irreplaceable, they are uniquely at risk from wildfire. We present the first national-scale assessment of wildfire risk to cultural heritage assets in the U.S. Here, wildfire risk is defined as the spatial coincidence of cultural heritage resources and modeled wildfire hazard. Our analysis integrates high-resolution burn probability models from the Fire Simulation project with spatial data for 56,103 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Places were further assessed by type, reflecting potential cultural loss if destroyed, including buildings, districts, structures, objects, and sites. Places were also categorized by cultural significance (local, state, national) to evaluate how risk varies across levels of importance. Risk was concentrated in the western United States, with hotspots in the Southeast. Buildings and districts comprise 90% of listed resources and may be more vulnerable because their value depends on physical form; other resource types may be less vulnerable. Only 36% of exposed places are nationally significant; most are state or locally significant. By identifying where and what is most at risk, this study provides a foundation for proactive planning to safeguard the places that anchor community identity, collective memory, and national heritage before they are permanently lost.

Indexed as

Cultural resourcesHazardHeritage resourcesNational register of historic placesStructure lossWildfire

Identifiers

PMID42120679
PMCPMC13350828

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.