the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 23 Jun 2025
Brief Communication: California wildfires highlight institutional capacity as key to community resilience
Abstract. The 2025 California wildfires exposed significant shortcomings in the implementation of wildfire-adapted land use policies and the application of fire-resilient architectural and urban design principles. This Brief Communication examines four key constraints on progress: stakeholder awareness and capacity building; the absence or inadequacy of incentives; and governance barriers, such as regulatory fragmentation, misalignment between agencies, and insufficient integration of risk into spatial planning processes. The text emphasises the need for coherent, cross-sectoral policy frameworks that foster adaptive capacity at multiple scales, enhance compliance with and enforcement of building codes, and align risk reduction with long-term sustainability and climate resilience objectives.
Competing interests: Margreth Keiler is an Executive Editor of Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, and Sven Fuchs is an Editor of the journal.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(420 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2509', David E. Alexander, 15 Jul 2025
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sven Fuchs, 02 Aug 2025
reply
We would like to thank the reviewer for his positive and encouraging feedback, and for drawing our attention to the important parallels between the issues discussed in our manuscript and those observed in other recent disasters, such as the floods in Valencia (Spain) in 2024 and the recent flash floods in Texas (US).
We agree that the question of why known solutions to natural hazard risks are not implemented is central, and we appreciate the reviewer emphasising the role of ideology and political polarisation in this context. Although our manuscript briefly references the rollback of disaster preparedness regulations during the Trump administration as an example of such dynamics, we recognise that political and ideological factors warrant further consideration. However, given the format and scope of this brief communication, we have chosen to keep the reference concise to avoid overemphasising a specific political episode and shifting the focus away from our primary objective of comparing institutional capacity and governance challenges across hazard types, particularly between wildfires and floods.
Similarly, we appreciate the suggestion to include additional case examples and agree that they could provide valuable illustrations. To preserve the brevity and coherence of the manuscript and maintain a comparative focus on California wildfires and other hazards, especially in terms of institutional and regulatory responses, we have decided to add these examples briefly in Sections 5 (Removing governance barriers) for the 2024 Spain example and 6 (Conclusion) for the 2025 Texas example.
The sections will read as follows:
5 Removing governace barriers
Effective management of natural hazards requires the systematic identification and removal of institutional and structural barriers that impede resilience and preparedness. These barriers often stem from a combination of administrative fragmentation, misaligned political incentives, and insufficient integration of risk considerations into broader policy frameworks. Key challenges include accountability gaps, where unclear mandates and responsibilities across institutions hinder coordinated action, as well as a pervasive lack of transparency in decision-making processes. Political constraints also play a significant role, with policy directions sometimes shaped by short-term populist agendas or illiberal leadership, such as the rollback of disaster preparedness regulations observed during the Trump administration in the United States. Another example is the 2024 Valencia flood in Spain, were governance complexities and party politics driven by political rivalry and autonomy tensions hindered effective disaster management (Geier, 2025). Such political dynamics can erode established norms of precautionary planning and diminish institutional commitment to long-term risk reduction. Weak enforcement of existing regulations, legal ambiguities, and fragmented sectoral responsibilities further exacerbate different dimensions of vulnerability. The absence of coherent mainstreaming of disaster risk management across sectors results in siloed interventions that fail to address the systemic nature of risk. Moreover, mismatches between the spatial and temporal scales of risk and those of policy implementation can hinder the effectiveness of adaptation and resilience strategies. Financial limitations and persistent knowledge gaps further restrict the ability of institutions to engage in proactive disaster preparedness. Limited funding for prevention measures often leads to reactive, crisis-driven responses rather than long-term planning (Biesbroek et al., 2013). Meanwhile, rushed and poorly executed infrastructure and construction projects – often driven by political or economic expediency – can inadvertently increase exposure to hazards, particularly in rapidly urbanising areas or regions undergoing post-disaster reconstruction. Addressing these multifaceted governance challenges requires a multilevel, multidisciplinary approach to strengthen governance, improve enforcement and promote sustainable development practices (Biesbroek et al., 2013).
6 Conclusion
Achieving sustainable economies and resilient societies requires the systematic removal of behavioural and institutional barriers that hinder transformative change. Behavioural barriers are often rooted in psychological and socio-cultural dynamics, including cognitive biases such as the normalcy bias, overconfidence, and the discounting of future risks. Combined with short-term economic thinking and a preference for immediate gains over long-term security, these biases can limit proactive engagement in risk reduction strategies. Meanwhile, institutional barriers – such as fragmented governance structures, poor horizontal and vertical coordination between administrative bodies, and weak regulatory enforcement – significantly undermine the development and implementation of coherent and effective disaster risk reduction (DRR) policies. These barriers are amplified further by misinformation and conspiracy theories that spread rapidly across social media. The recent 2025 Texas floods in the US are a case in point (Golgowski, 2025; Makuch, 2025). The complexity of DRR lies not only in the unpredictability and variability of natural hazards, but also in the socio-political and institutional contexts in which risk is managed. As a multifaceted challenge, DRR requires interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration that cuts across policy sectors and levels of government. This includes integrating knowledge from the natural sciences, engineering, urban planning, economics, and the social sciences, as well as actively engaging with civil society and the private sector. Institutional inertia and policy fragmentation often act as critical constraints, making cross-sectoral collaboration both necessary and difficult. In order to meaningfully contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 13 (Climate Action), DRR must be mainstreamed into broader sustainability and spatial development agendas. This includes embedding risk considerations into land use planning, environmental regulation, infrastructure development, and social protection policies. Coherent land use strategies that account for hazard exposure, ecological integrity, and socio-economic vulnerabilities are vital for building systemic resilience and reducing long-term risks.
Institutional capacity plays a central role in enabling or constraining such efforts. Recent extreme events, such as the widespread wildfires in the United States, have exposed the severe consequences of institutional weaknesses, including delayed responses, insufficient preparedness, and poorly coordinated interventions. These cases highlight the urgent need to enforce existing regulations more effectively, improve inter-agency coordination, and strengthen governance mechanisms at all levels. Effective DRR must also address structural and systemic vulnerabilities, including not only physical exposure to hazards but also deeper social issues such as inequality, marginalisation, and access to resources (Doorn et al., 2021). Furthermore, diversity in terms of perspectives, experiences, and knowledge systems must be recognised as a valuable asset in developing inclusive and context-sensitive resilience strategies (Papathoma-Köhle et al., 2021). Without addressing these deeply embedded governance challenges, efforts to build hazard-resilient societies will remain fragmented. What is needed is a more integrated, equitable, and inclusive approach that aligns DRR with the broader sustainability agenda and acknowledges the interdependencies between environmental and social systems. This approach must support long-term resilience for all communities in the face of escalating climate-related risks. Science is called upon to move beyond sectoral adaptation toward transformative approaches; only then can it meaningfully contribute to strengthening community resilience under changing conditions. As White et al. (2001) argued, this requires shifting from uncoordinated, sector-specific responses to a more coherent and integrated form of risk management that addresses underlying structural issues and political inertia.
New references to be included will be:
Geier, W.: Valencia 2024 flood disaster: Challenges of effective disaster management in countries with complex division of public responsibilities, in: Hochwasser – inundaciones – floods: Integrative risk and security research, edited by: Fekete, A., TH Köln, Cologne, 186-190, 2025.
Golgowski, N.: 'Fake weather, fake flooding': Republicans are spreading a bizarre conspiracy theory after the deadly Texas floods, HuffPost, 07 July 2025, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/weather-manipulation-conspiracy-theory-texas-floods_n_686c0c45e4b0082b3c90c01c, 2025 (retrieved 02 August 2025).
Makuch, B.: Far-right conspiracy theories spread online in aftermath of the Texas floods, The Guardian, 09 July 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/09/texas-floods-conspiracy-theories, 2025 (retrieved 02 August 2025).
We hope that both the editor and the reviewer agree that this approach maintains the clarity and relevance of the paper, encouraging further discussion and research into the structural and political roots of implementation gaps in disaster risk reduction.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2509-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sven Fuchs, 02 Aug 2025
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 927 | 38 | 18 | 983 | 20 | 27 |
- HTML: 927
- PDF: 38
- XML: 18
- Total: 983
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 27
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This short communication offers a very welcome, timely discussion of an extremely pertinent issue. It is interesting to note that many of the planning and preparedness deficiencies described in the paper are common to diverse environments and disaster. For example, the misuse of land subject to natural hazard impacts connects the October 2024 floods in Valencia (Fekete 2025) and the January 2025 wildfires in Los Angeles. The flash floods in Texas also qualify.
The solutions to many natural hazard problems are clear, as the paper explains. The question is why they are not implemented. Poor organisation and lack of information and training are emphasised in the paper. I would suggest that ideology and political polarisation are at the root. Perhaps they need more than a passing mention.
The paper would benefit from short examples. I understand that it is a short contribution, and also that examples can be controversial, but they can be very illuminating of the mix of factors that predispose areas to disaster.
I hope that this paper stimulates more discussion of why solutions to the problem of natural hazards are not sufficiently implemented.
Fekete, A. 2025 (ed.) Hochwasser – Inundaciones – Floods. Integrative Risk and Security Research, 1/2025. TH Köln, Cologne, 234 pp.