That’s really not enough, forest fires are basically distributed denial of service attack. A tiny spark which wouldn’t be a significant issue on it’s own can destroy a house when nobody is there actively protecting it.

Clearing vegetation and material selection can make a huge difference, just don’t expect a normal house to be ok anywhere near a fire.

Embers are actually the things that cause the most damage:

* https://www.intermap.com/risks-of-hazard-blog/2015/03/does-y...

* https://ibhs.org/ibhs-news-releases/embers-cause-up-to-90-of...

It seems that by dealing with anything on/near your structure that can be ignited by them can reduce risk by quite a lot.

A big enough fire, which is what you get with tall, overcrowded trees, will set many houses on fire from hundreds of yards away - even if no embers or anything else land on the house.

It is really amazing the amount of heat released, and how quickly, in one of these fires.

The three main sources of ignition during a wildfire are embers, direct flame contact, and radiant heat. This is why the FPA and others have the three different zones, of particular distances, where they recommend doing particular things. House can survive large quantities of radiant heat:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq6wy_tffpg

Quite often what happens with radiant heat is that it breaks a window, which then allows embers to go into the house and set it alight. Embers are actually the things that cause the most damage:

* https://www.intermap.com/risks-of-hazard-blog/2015/03/does-y...

* https://ibhs.org/ibhs-news-releases/embers-cause-up-to-90-of...

On the other hand radiant heat often kills people the most (e.g., through heat stroke).

It’s also pretty wasteful when you think about it. How much energy could we harness if we simply allowed logging and used the wood for heating, construction, or electricity.