Sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology

The National Institute 

of Standards and 

Technology’s Impact on 

Fire Safety Standards

BENJAMIN M. MILLER, TOM LATOURRETTE, DRAKE WARREN, DAVID METZ

C O R P O R A T I O N
For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RRA1100-1.

About RAND

The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities 

throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the 

public interest. To learn more about RAND, visit www.rand.org.

Research Integrity

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality 

and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research 

and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance 

process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, 

and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open 

publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to 

ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif.

© 2022 RAND Corporation

 is a registered trademark.

Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided 

for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this 

document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse 

in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit 

www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
iii 

About This Report 

Standards provide critical benefits across a wide variety of contexts, including safety and 

health, environmental protection, and quality of products and services. However, while these 

benefits are generally acknowledged, estimating the social and economic value of standards and 

determining how specific entities and activities influence their development require careful 

analysis. In October of 2018, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) asked 

the RAND Corporation to estimate the benefit of NIST’s research contributing to particular fire 

safety standards. The original objectives of the project were to (1) document the role of the NIST 

in the standards development process, (2) estimate the value these standards provide to society, 

and (3) thereby inform the economic value of NIST’s contribution to these standards. This report 

presents results for the first two objectives. Given that NIST’s contribution is one of several 

inputs combining to create these standards, NIST’s share of the credit for their value could not 

be quantified. Our analysis focused on case studies in standards for home smoke alarms and for 

protecting structures at the wildland-urban interface (WUI). Our analysis draws on a wide variety 

of qualitative and quantitative methods to holistically describe the impacts of these standards and 

NIST’s role in their development. 

The intended audience of this report includes those who work on fire safety research, fire 

safety standards, building codes, and technology transfer. The conclusions presented here may 

also be of interest for broader resource allocation and federal budget justification purposes. 

Finally, this report was written to be accessible to any interested members of the general public. 

Community Health and Environmental Policy Program 

RAND Social and Economic Well-Being is a division of the RAND Corporation that seeks to 

actively improve the health and social and economic well-being of populations and communities 

throughout the world. This research was conducted in the Community Health and Environmental 

Policy Program within RAND Social and Economic Well-Being. The program focuses on such 

topics as infrastructure, science and technology, community design, community health promotion, 

migration and population dynamics, transportation, energy, and climate and the environment, as 

well as other policy concerns that are influenced by the natural and built environment, technology, 

and community organizations and institutions that affect well-being. For more information, 

email chep@rand.org. 

 
iv 

Contents 

About This Report.......................................................................................................................... iii

Figures............................................................................................................................................ vi

Tables ........................................................................................................................................... viii

Summary ........................................................................................................................................ ix

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................ xiv

Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ xv

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

The Purpose and Scope of This Report .................................................................................................... 1

The Purpose of Standards ......................................................................................................................... 2

The Standards Development Process ....................................................................................................... 3

Organization of This Report ..................................................................................................................... 5

2. The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Role in the Development of 

Fire Safety Standards ................................................................................................................ 6

National Institute of Standards and Technology Fire Research Division ................................................. 6

Involvement in Standards Development Organizations ........................................................................... 8

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 13

3. Smoke Alarm Standards ........................................................................................................... 14

Case Study 1: The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Role in Encouraging 

the Adoption of Smoke Alarms ....................................................................................................... 14

Case Study 2: The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Role in Updated Smoke 

Alarm Performance Requirements ................................................................................................... 18

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 24

4. The Impact of Smoke Alarm Standards on Fire Outcomes ...................................................... 25

Previous Research on the Benefit of Code Adoption, Enforcement, and Smoke Alarms ...................... 26

Adoption of Smoke Alarm Standards into Building Codes .................................................................... 29

The Impact of Smoke Alarm Standards on Fire Outcomes, 2003–2017 ................................................ 30

Other Analysis of Potential Benefits of Smoke Alarm Standards .......................................................... 34

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 37

5. Wildland-Urban Interface Standards ........................................................................................ 38

Case Study 3: The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Role in Wilderness Urban 

Interface Building Standards and Codes .......................................................................................... 38

Participation in Standards Development Organizations ......................................................................... 43

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 44

6. The Economic Impact of Wildland-Urban Interface Safety Standards .................................... 45

Previous Studies of Wildland-Urban Interface Building Survivability .................................................. 46

Camp Fire Case Study ............................................................................................................................ 47
v 

Factors That May Confound the Perceived Relationship Between House Age 

and Survivability .............................................................................................................................. 51

Measuring the Impact of Year Built on Survivability ............................................................................ 54

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 62

7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 64

Appendix A. National Institute of Stands and Technology Fire Research 

Division Survey ...................................................................................................................... 66

Appendix B. Statistical Methods for Assessing the Impact of Smoke Alarm Standards 

on Fire Outcomes .................................................................................................................... 70

Appendix C. Spatial Econometric Model Overview .................................................................... 78

References ..................................................................................................................................... 82
vi 

Figures 

Figure 1.1. High-Level Logic Model of How National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Activities Lead to Economic Impacts ................................................................. 5

Figure 2.1. Standards Development Organizations’ Involvement Among Current 

Researchers in the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Fire 

Research Division ................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2.2. Standards Development Organizations’ Roles Held by Researchers in the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Fire Research Division ............................ 9

Figure 2.3. Number of National Institute of Standards and Technology Researchers 

Involved in Specific Fire Safety Standards ........................................................................... 10

Figure 2.4. Have You Ever Submitted a Formal Proposal, Revision, or Comments for 

This Standards Development Organization? ........................................................................ 11

Figure 2.5. Which Most Closely Describes the Amount of Time You Spend on Activities 

with or for Standards Development Organizations? ............................................................. 12

Figure 2.6. What Is Your Total Length of Service for All of the Activities Listed in 

Figure 2.5? ............................................................................................................................ 12

Figure 3.1. Logic Model of National Institute of Standards and Technology Activities 

and Smoke Alarm Safety Standards ..................................................................................... 14

Figure 3.2. Early Research on the Theoretical Value of a Smoke Detector Relative to a 

Heat Detector ........................................................................................................................ 15

Figure 4.1. Logic Model of National Institute of Standards and Technology Activities 

and Smoke Alarm Safety Standards ..................................................................................... 25

Figure 4.2. Statewide Adoption of Codes Incorporating National Fire Protection 

Association 72 by State, Edition, and Year .......................................................................... 31

Figure 4.3. Smoke Alarm Usage in 2020 ...................................................................................... 35

Figure 5.1. Logic Model of National Institute of Standards and Technology Activities and 

Wildland-Urban Interface Standards and Codes ................................................................... 38

Figure 6.1. Logic Model of the National Institute of Stands and Technology’s Activities 

and Wildland-Urban Interface Standards and Codes ............................................................ 45

Figure 6.2. Level of Damages in the 2018 Camp Fire for Homes Built in Each Year ................. 49

Figure 6.3. Share of Damaged Homes in the 2018 Camp Fire for Homes Built in 

Each Year .............................................................................................................................. 50

Figure 6.4. Average Year Built for Single-Family Homes ........................................................... 52

Figure 6.5. Number of Decades Represented by the Year Housing was Built ............................. 53

Figure 6.6. Density of Single-Family Housing ............................................................................. 55

Figure 6.7. Interpolation of Average Damage Intensity ............................................................... 56
vii 

Figure 6.8. Predicted Probability of Damage If All Houses Were Built in a Given Decade ........ 59

Figure B.1. Outliers in the Number of Fires per Capita ................................................................ 74

Figure B.2. Outliers in Fatalities and Injuries ............................................................................... 75

Figure B.3. States with Minimum Codes Report More Fires but Have a Similar 

Distribution of Severity......................................................................................................... 77

Figure C.1. Neighbor Relationships Between Houses .................................................................. 79

 
viii 

Tables 

Table 3.1. Timeline of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Key 

Contribution to Smoke Alarm Adoption and Standardization .............................................. 16

Table 3.2. Timeline of Key Residential Smoke Alarm Standards ................................................ 18

Table 3.3. Timeline of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Key 

Contributions to Updated Smoke Alarm Performance Requirements .................................. 19

Table 3.4. Timeline of Key Residential Smoke Alarm Standard and Code Developments ......... 22

Table 3.5. The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Involvement in Smoke 

Alarm Standards Development Organization Committees ................................................... 23

Table 4.1. Relative Risk of Fatalities per Fire in Homes With and Without Smoke Alarms ....... 27

Table 4.2. Relative Risk of Fatalities per Home in Homes With and Without Smoke Alarms .... 28

Table 4.3. Estimated Percentage Change in the Number of Fires Following a 1-Percent 

Increase in Homes Built Since the Listed Code Was Enacted, 2003–2017 ......................... 33

Table 4.4. Estimated Percentage Change in the Number of Reported Injuries or Fatalities 

Following a 1-Percent Increase in Homes Built Since the Listed Code Was 

Enacted, 2003–2017 .............................................................................................................. 34

Table 5.1. Timeline of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Key 

Contributions to the Development of Wilderness Urban Interface Standards ...................... 39

Table 5.2. Timeline of Key Wilderness Urban Interface Codes ................................................... 41

Table 5.3. The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Involvement in Wilderness 

Urban Interface Standards Development Organization (and Related) Committees ............. 44

Table 6.1. Counts and Damage Levels of Houses in the 2018 Camp Fire ................................... 49

Table 6.2. Summary Statistics for Damaged and Undamaged Houses in the 2018 

Camp Fire.............................................................................................................................. 58

Table 6.3. Estimates of Camp Fire Damage Averted If All Residential Structure Were as 

Survivable as Single-Family Houses Built in the 2000s ....................................................... 62

Table B.1. Selection Bias in Reporting to the National Fire Incident Report System, 

2017 Data .............................................................................................................................. 72

Table B.2. No Statistically Significant Relationship Between the Proportion of Housing 

Built Since Code Updates and the Number of Reported Fires, Including Outliers .............. 76

Table B.3. No Statistically Significant Relationship Between the Proportion of Housing 

Built Since Code Updates and the Number of Reported Injuries or Fatalities, 

Including Outliers ................................................................................................................. 76

 
ix 

Summary 

Standards play an important role in health and safety of everyday life, affecting everything 

from food production and transportation services to building design and consumer products of all 

types. Standards help ensure that goods and services traded in national and global marketplaces 

are both safe and effective. Without effectively implemented standards, the world would be a 

much more hazardous place to live in. The National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) is the U.S. government’s primary agency for shaping and influencing the development 

of measurement standards, both nationally and internationally, and plays a unique and critical 

role in the development of measurement standards. 

While the safety and health benefits of standards are generally acknowledged, our 

understanding of their value, how they accrue, and what entities and activities are responsible 

for creating them is limited. In October of 2018, NIST asked RAND to estimate the benefit of 

NIST’s research contributing to particular fire safety standards. The original objectives of 

the project were to (1) document the role of the NIST in the standards development process, 

(2) estimate the value these standards provide to society, and (3) thereby inform the economic 

value of NIST’s contribution to these standards. This report presents results for the first two 

objectives. Given that NIST’s contribution is one of several inputs combining to create these 

standards, NIST’s share of the credit for their value could not be quantified. 

Our analysis focused on case studies in standards for home smoke alarms and for protecting 

structures at the wildland-urban interface (WUI), the transition areas between wildlands and urban 

spaces. We demonstrate NIST’s role in standard development through three case studies, selected 

in coordination with staff of NIST’s Fire Research Division: historical work that led to the initial 

adoption of smoke alarms, ongoing changes to smoke alarm performance requirements, and 

ongoing research on wildfire safety in WUI. We then conduct novel analyses to indirectly 

estimate the potential impacts of smoke alarm and WUI standards. 

Our analysis compiles many different sources of information, including reviews of research 

literature, interviews with representatives of NIST laboratories and standards development 

organizations (SDOs), review of SDO documentation of the standards development process for 

several standards and codes, observation of an SDO meeting, a survey of research staff in the 

NIST Fire Research Division, a novel module on smoke alarm usage in a national representative 

survey, analysis of the relationship between state building codes and fire safety outcomes, and 

analysis of data from the 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise, California. 

Our study shows that NIST’s role in standards development comes at the very beginning of 

the process, providing the foundational research on which subsequent activities are built. NIST 

researchers and staff proactively and intentionally engage with a variety of SDOs, and these 
x 

SDOs in turn deeply value NIST’s participation. This report highlights multiple examples where 

research conducted by NIST proved to be essential to developing effective standards. 

Smoke Alarm Standards 

NIST research played a critical role from the late 1960s through the late 1970s in rapidly 

shifting home smoke alarms from novelty to standard practice. Data from several early 

demonstration projects in which NIST participated showed benefits from installation of smoke 

alarms. In addition to promoting the inclusion of smoke alarms in homes, NIST’s work also 

helped advance the effectiveness of smoke alarm technology, which led to a number of design 

improvements and specifications and ultimately to the first smoke alarm standard in 1974. 

Since the mid-1970s, the use of smoke alarms in homes has grown substantially, largely 

facilitated by the adoption of state and local ordinances requiring their use. Following this 

early period, NIST continued to support the development of smoke alarm standards with work 

targeted at specific aspects of smoke alarm placement and performance. One area of research 

focused on revisiting smoke alarm design and testing in light of the shift to the use of largely 

synthetic materials in upholstered furniture versus natural furnishing materials for which early 

smoke alarm designs had been developed. A major outcome of this research included updates 

to test performance requirements reflecting conditions created in fires of modern synthetic 

furnishing materials. 

Another aspect of this later research focused on reducing nuisance alarms, primarily 

stemming from cooking aerosols and bathroom shower mist. Nuisance alarms were an 

important area of investigation because the inconvenience often led home occupants to disable 

smoke alarms, thereby leaving occupants unprotected and contributing to deaths associated with 

residential fires. Since the late 1980s, residential smoke alarm standards have evolved as a result 

of NIST’s contributions and reflect changes in restrictions on smoke alarm placement and 

technology. Most recently, NIST research endeavored to resolve nuisance alarms independent 

of location or technology, which has motivated a 2020 revision to smoke alarm standards to 

adopt this newest capability. 

Prior to examining the benefit of smoke alarm standards, we compiled and summarized 

research on the effectiveness of smoke alarm technology. This body of research shows that the 

presence of a working smoke alarm in a home reduces the number of fires per home, the number 

of reported fires per fire, and the number of fatalities per reported fire, combining to result in the 

risk of a fire fatality in a home with a smoke alarm being 7 to 26 times lower than in a home 

without a smoke alarm. 

To measure the social and economic impact of smoke alarm standards, we developed a 

novel database documenting state-level variation in the adoption of smoke alarm standards in 

residential housing codes. We found that the frequency with which states update residential 

building codes can vary significantly, although we did not find evidence that adopting codes 
xi 

containing the most recent smoke alarm standards significantly alters the number or severity of 

fires nor the number of injuries or fatalities. We suspect this is because the largest gains in fire 

safety from smoke alarms occurred prior to 2003, which is the earliest point in time we can 

measure these correlations. In fact, by 2003, 95 percent of households had already installed at 

least one smoke alarm. As a result, safety impacts imparted through the adoption of updated 

residential smoke alarm standards since 2003 have been too small to measure. 

These results do not necessarily mean that further updates to smoke alarm standards or 

building codes are irrelevant. Ongoing work on smoke alarm standards, supported by NIST 

research, continues to address nuisance alarms, as well as testing requirements, system 

interconnection, notifications targeting children, and other topics. A nationally representative 

survey of American households conducted by RAND in March 2020 found that 36 percent of 

households reported having disabled a smoke alarm (e.g., by removing the batteries) to prevent 

nuisance alarms, which is an issue that current standards development efforts are seeking to 

address. To the extent that new standards, based in part on NIST research, can reduce the 

frequency with which households disable smoke alarms, that would provide meaningful 

improvements in fire safety and general well-being. 

Wildland-Urban Interface Standards 

As the risk of WUI fires has increased, the research community has begun paying increased 

attention to wildland fires, which have grown in number and intensity and are causing more 

damage and taking more lives. The increase in WUI risks is driven by increased human-caused 

ignition and increased building exposure. The large wildland fires that occurred in the 1990s 

and early 2000s appear to have motivated NISTs work in this area (e.g., see Manzello, Cleary, 

and Yang, 2004), which began as an extension of its general fire efforts at the National Fire 

Research Laboratory. 

According to NIST personnel, early WUI fire research conducted by NIST focused on 

developing a better understanding of how fire spreads from the vegetative fuels of the wildland 

to structures. By 2004, this research had evolved to an examination of firebrands—small 

flaming or glowing embers that may be transported by the wind into a building’s vents or 

crevices and cause structure ignition. NIST’s research demonstrated that a majority of structure 

ignitions were in fact caused by firebrands rather than flame contact or thermal radiation and 

continuing research is examining gaps in knowledge about firebrands. NIST has also collected 

data on historic fires to further study of fire behavior and consequences. Other complementary 

research has examined the socio-technical aspects of WUI risk. 

NIST’s work is providing fundamental groundwork needed to develop evidence-based 

WUI standards and influence study of different building designs and materials to deter 

firebrand-driven ignition. NIST also provided technical support and leadership in the 
xii 

development and implementation of Executive Order (EO) 13,728, Wildland-Urban Interface 

Federal Risk Mitigation (Obama, 2016). 

Research into the effectiveness of design changes is still in its early stages, so the effects 

of potential design changes on survivability are highly uncertain. To measure the social and 

economic impact of WUI standards, we conducted a geospatial analysis of the extent to which 

homes built with newer construction methods avoided damage or destruction during the 2018 

Camp Fire in Paradise, California. Our results suggest that the survivability of houses has 

generally been improving over time. This result is consistent with steady improvements in 

standards and the associated changes in building practices, although other explanations are 

also possible. 

We used two different approaches to estimate the savings that might occur if all houses 

within the 2018 Camp Fire perimeter were as survivable as houses built in 2000 to 2009 

(the decade in which houses built had the lowest damage rates). Results of the two approaches 

indicated a 6- and 43-percent reduction in housing losses, respectively, which we estimated to 

be equivalent to $600 million or $4 billion in averted losses. 

Although we did find a general relationship between evolving standards and reduced damage 

in residential homes, limitations in data meant we were unable to link these improvements to a 

specific change in building codes. Studies of buildings affected by wildfires typically collect 

minimal information on undamaged buildings, making it impossible to compare the design of 

buildings that ignited with those that survived. Collection of such data could greatly improve 

our understanding of the factors that increase survivability in wildfires, which would lead to the 

development of improved WUI standards and building codes. 

Conclusion 

The development and adoption of standards and codes involve a number of different 

stakeholder groups, sometimes with competing interests. Standard development requires basic 

research, development of standardized testing methods, and the coordination and integration of 

stakeholder needs. Adoption further requires widespread incorporation of standards into codes 

and enforcement of those codes. Because of the collaborative and multistage nature of this 

process, the economic and social impacts of both the standards themselves and the specific 

contributions of particular entities toward the development of those standards are difficult to 

isolate. In addition, in the case of standards that apply to infrastructure, such as those for fire 

safety, it can take years to decades for the benefits of research to make their way into the built 

environment and be realized. 

Our analysis identified a number of important contributions from NIST to the development 

and adoption of standards for smoke alarms and WUI protection. While our quantitative analyses 

were not able to detect significant economic benefits that can be linked directly to specific 

standards, this in no way suggests that fire safety standards, and NIST’s contributions to them, 
xiii 

do not have great value. In the case of smoke alarms, the most significant gains were likely made 

prior to the time period for which we conducted our analysis. Conversely, in the WUI setting, 

standards are still in the active research stages, and the biggest benefits are likely yet to be 

realized. In both cases, we discuss clear evidence of steady safety improvements over time and 

suggest that those steady improvements may be largely or partly attributed to the concurrent 

evolution of multiple related standards. Standards may also have indirect economic benefits, 

such as increasing technology development and adoption and efficiency of markets, which our 

analyses also cannot capture. 

The type of foundational research conducted by NIST is a necessary precursor to the 

development of standards that yield meaningful public health and safety benefits. Further, 

although other entities devoted to fire safety research exist, substitutes to NIST are not readily 

apparent. Thus, while we cannot know if another entity would have made the contributions to 

smoke alarm and wildfire safety standards that NIST did, it is clear that NIST’s leadership role 

in basic research and standards development has been critical for bringing the standards and 

their adoption to their current status. 
xiv 

Acknowledgments 

This report was made possible due to the generosity of a large number of individuals. 

Countless NIST staff were generous in sharing their time and first-hand perspectives. In particular, 

we thank Kathleen McTigue, Eric Puskar, Mike Walsh, Tom Cleary, Sam Manzello, Stanley 

Gilbert, and all the staff at the NIST’s Fire Research Division for their support throughout this 

project. The Fire Research Division met with us on multiple occasions, hosted our presentations, 

were extremely responsive to the survey we present in Chapter 2, and were always thoughtful 

and intentional about connecting their research to needs through standards rather than simply 

conducting research for its own sake. Many representatives from standards development and 

other organizations were similarly generous, including Tom O’Toole and Dan Smith of ASTM 

International; Debra Ballen, Anne Cope, Daniel Gorham, Faraz Hedayati, Sherry Melton, Murray 

Morrison of the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety® (IBHS); Karl Fippinger, Gabriel 

Master, Mike Pfeiffer, and Sara Yerkes of the International Code Council (ICC); Kathleen Almand 

and Guy Colonna of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA); and David Mills and Diane 

Haithcock of Underwriters Laboratories. Cory Ogle, Richard Roux, and the members of NFPA’s 

Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-HOU) Technical 

Committee were kind enough to allow us to observe their meeting in July 2019 in Indianapolis. 

Several of our analyses benefited greatly from those who provided us with data and other 

analytic materials. We thank Kathleen Carter at the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) for the 

providing the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) data at truly astounding speed. 

We again find ourselves thanking NIST staff, David Butry and Douglas Thomas, who shared 

code and insights from their work, which served as an inspiration for our approach to weighting 

NFIRS responses. On the WUI side, we are similarly indebted to Dale Kasler and Phillip Reese 

of the Sacramento Bee, who saved us immense time and effort by providing us with the Camp 

Fire data they assembled for their analysis. David Shew also provided critical insights and 

perspective on WUI issues in California. 

At RAND, Eric Landree provided helpful perspective on NIST structure and processes, and 

Barbara Bicksler was invaluable in helping condense our analysis into a clear and organized 

narrative. Finally, we thank our peer reviewers, Stephen Quarles and Lloyd Dixon, for their very 

helpful insights and perspectives. 

 
xv 

Abbreviations 

ALP American Life Panel 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

BCEGS Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule 

CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

DINS Damage Inspection (CAL FIRE program) 

EO Executive order 

FCIC Fire, Performance, Wildland-Urban Interface Code Interpretation 

Committee 

FDID Fire Department ID 

FY fiscal year 

HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

IBHS Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 

ICBO International Council of Building Officials 

ICC International Code Council 

IFCI International Fire Code Institute 

ISO International Standards Organization 

IWUIC International Wildland-Urban Interface Code 

NBS National Bureau of Standards 

NFIRS National Fire Incident Report System 

NFPA National Fire Protection Association 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

R/T research/testing 

SDO standards development organization 

TC technical committee 
xvi 

TG task group 

USFA U.S. Fire Administration 

VCS voluntary consensus standard 

WG working group 

WUI wildland-urban interface 

 
1 

1. Introduction 

In 1901, Congress founded the federal government’s first physical science research laboratory, 

the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), as a measurement and standards laboratory within the 

U.S. Department of the Treasury, although it was quickly moved to the new U.S. Department of 

Commerce and Labor. When the Department of Commerce and Labor was split in 1913, NBS 

was retained by the new Department of Commerce. The agency has not moved since that time, 

although in 1988 NBS was renamed the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).1

NIST’s mission is “to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing 

measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and 

improve our quality of life” (NIST, 2021). 

NIST’s mission establishes it as the U.S. government’s primary agency for shaping and 

influencing the development of measurement standards, both nationally and internationally. 

As evidenced in this report, NIST plays a unique and critical role in the development of 

measurement standards. 

The Purpose and Scope of This Report 

In October of 2018, NIST asked RAND to estimate the benefit of NIST’s research contributing 

to particular fire safety standards. The original objectives of the project were to (1) document the 

role of the NIST in the standards development process, (2) estimate the value these standards 

provide to society, and (3) thereby inform the economic value of NIST’s contribution to these 

standards. This report presents results for the first two objectives. Given that NIST’s contribution 

is one of several inputs combining to create these standards, NIST’s share of the credit for their 

value could not be quantified. 

RAND proposed fire safety standards as the broad technology area due to the increasing 

prevalence of wildfire losses and the tangible outcomes of fire safety research. In this report 

we demonstrate NIST’s role in standard development through three case studies, selected in 

coordination with staff of NIST’s Fire Research Division: historical work that led to the initial 

adoption of smoke alarms, ongoing changes to smoke alarm performance requirements, and 

ongoing research on wildfire safety in the wildland-urban interface (WUI), the transitional 

area between wildland and urban space. We then separately conducted two novel analyses to 

indirectly estimate the potential impacts of smoke alarm and WUI standards. A comprehensive 

analysis of the value of NIST’s contributions would account for the costs of NIST’s research 

 

1

 For the remainder of the report, NIST is used to refer to both NIST and NBS. 
2 

investment. However, because the benefits of fire safety standards flow from a number of 

sources beyond NIST’s contributions, it is not feasible to estimate the total investment cost 

that led to those benefits. 

To conduct these evaluations, we compiled many different sources of information, including 

reviews of research literature, interviews with representatives of NIST laboratories and standards 

development organizations (SDOs), review of SDO documentation of the standards development 

process for several standards and codes, and observation of an SDO meeting. We also conducted 

a survey of research staff in the NIST Fire Research Division, developed a novel module on 

smoke alarm usage in a national representative survey, and conducted analyses of the relationship 

between state building codes and fire safety outcomes and of data from the 2018 Camp Fire 

in Paradise, California. 

The Purpose of Standards 

Standards influence almost every aspect of day-to-day life. Standards affect food production, 

transportation services, building design, and consumer products and services of all types. For more 

than a century, national and international SDOs have been developing detailed specifications 

and conditions to guide the production of goods and delivery of services. One purpose of these 

standards is to ensure that the goods and services traded in national and global marketplaces are 

both safe and effective. For example, standards help ensure that food is safe to eat and that 

children’s clothing does not easily catch fire. 

Another purpose of standards is to support functional and efficient national and international 

commerce. NIST was founded at the behest of not only scientists but also manufacturers and 

makers of electrical instruments to address severe social and economic challenges created by the 

lack of national standards.2

 At the beginning of the twentieth century, when NIST was founded, 

few national standards for measuring or producing products existed. What standards did exist 

were local or regional and thereby created confusion for interstate commerce and challenges for 

activities that are often taken for granted today, such as conducting fair transactions and fitting 

together parts. “There were [for example] at least eight different gallons and four different feet 

in use” (NIST, undated). Some of NIST’s first actions were to develop standards for measuring 

length, light, and time. 

In some cases, businesses actively encourage making certain standards mandatory in order 

to ensure all members of an industry are following the same rules and to gain legal support in 

ensuring the industry as a whole is safe and efficient. For this reason, leadership in standards 

 

2

 An Office of Standard Weights and Measures already existed as part of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, “but 

the office had few employees, and some people disliked the idea of the federal government imposing standards or 

anything else on industry” (NIST, 2017a). 
3 

development conveys a large economic advantage. If a nation’s standards, laws, and regulations 

become the basis for other nations’ standards, laws, and regulations, then it is much easier to sell 

goods and services on the global market (Miller et al., 2017). 

The Standards Development Process 

Multiple types of standards serve different functions (Mackay, 1989), including best practices, 

guidelines, specifications, performance measures, test methods, and codes. Consequently, what is 

considered to be a “standard” varies across stakeholders and communities of interest. The Office 

of Management and Budget Circular No. A-119 (OMB, 2016, p. 15) defines a standard as a 

“common and repeated use of rules, conditions, guidelines or characteristics for products or 

related processes and production methods, and related management systems practices.” 

While NIST develops standard reference materials internally, in general its research in the 

development of standards supports the development of voluntary consensus standards (VCSs) 

by external, nongovernmental SDOs. Circular No. A-119 (OMB, 2016, p. 16) defines VCSs as 

“a type of standard developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, through the 

use of a voluntary consensus standards development process.” U.S. federal government policy 

outlined in Circular A-119 encourages federal agencies to actively participate in the VCS 

development process. 

A large number of SDOs develop VCSs, and these standards often build upon one another 

as they are developed. Some testing standards focus on the methods for conducting tests and 

constructing the equipment needed for those tests. Other design standards specify the conditions 

or criteria that certain products or services should meet, referencing testing standards for 

measuring whether the design standard’s conditions or criteria were met. For example, a design 

standard requiring product materials to be flame resistant may reference a testing standard for 

determining flame resistance. 

The Role of Standards Development Organizations 

SDOs are critical to the development of voluntary standards. They serve as curators and 

managers of voluntary standards within their scope of influence. They also manage the process 

of developing new consensus standards or modifying existing standards, which includes 

soliciting proposed changes, managing voting membership, convening meetings to debate and 

adjudicate proposed changes, and publishing updated standards for their stakeholders and 

industry partners. Some SDOs have narrowly defined scopes, such as the American Society 

of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, while other organizations, such as 

ASTM International or the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), may manage 

and promulgate standards that transcend multiple industry sectors. 

Although each SDO operates slightly differently, they all develop standards via a democratic 

consensus process using committees composed of individuals from multiple groups such as 

researchers, manufacturers, users, government entities, and other groups involved in a given 
4 

topic. All prominent SDOs are themselves accredited by the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI), which requires that SDOs meet ANSI’s “requirements for openness, balance, 

consensus, and due process and adhere to ANSI’s neutral oversight, assuring that all interested 

parties have an opportunity to participate in a standard’s development” (ANSI, undated). 

Although VCSs are by definition voluntary, many organizations and industries commit to 

following them to maintain quality, competitiveness, and efficiency. In some cases VCSs are 

adopted internationally. In addition, VCSs are often incorporated into government regulations 

such as building codes or other legal instruments, thus shifting a voluntary standard to a 

mandatory requirement with legal enforcement. The ways in which VCSs make their way into 

codes and regulations vary, but a common route is through model codes. SDOs, such as the 

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) or International Code Council (ICC), develop 

model building and fire codes through a consensus process. States, counties, townships, and/or 

municipalities typically select portions of a model code and adopt those provisions.3

 Once an 

authority having jurisdiction adopts portions of a model code and it is incorporated into law or 

regulation, those provisions become mandatory. 

How National Institute of Standards and Technology Research Contributes to 

Social Benefits 

Much of NIST’s work involves fundamental research into and development of 

“infratechnologies,” which are “fundamental measurement standards, measurement and 

test methods, science and engineering data bases, process models, and the technical bases for 

interface standards” (Tassey, 1999, pp. 113–114). Infratechnologies developed by NIST enable 

downstream impacts, such as improvements to codes and standards, as shown in the generic 

logic model in Figure 1.1. Working from left to right in the figure, one can see how NIST 

research and development activities can lead to changes in standards and codes, which, when 

adopted, can led to beneficial impacts on society, such as reductions in property damage and 

personal injuries. Standards may also provide indirect benefits, such as increasing technology 

development and adoption and efficiency of markets. These indirect benefits are not captured 

in Figure 1.1 or in our analyses. 

While NIST is a key player in conducting research and development related to new and 

improving existing standards and is the U.S. government’s primary voice in the development 

of measurement standards, many other organizations are also involved in the development of 

standards. Industry’s knowledge of manufacturing processes as well as their knowledge of how 

their products and services are typically affected by standards make them key members of the 

 

3

 Organizations rarely adopt a model code in its entirety. For example, the state of Florida would not normally adopt 

snow-loading provisions in its building code since snow is not usually an issue in Florida. North Dakota would not 

typically adopt hurricane provisions in its building code since hurricanes do not usually occur in North Dakota. 
5 

Figure 1.1. High-Level Logic Model of How National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Activities Lead to Economic Impacts 

standards development process as well. Other federal government agencies, as well as state and 

local government entities, often provide subject matter expertise or technical knowledge on 

standards related to their mission or function. Academic institutions contribute to standards 

development through research and development activities. NIST collaborates with all of these 

entities. It is through their collective effort that development, promulgation, and consistent, 

incremental improvement of standards contribute to the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers 

and lead to better products and services that contribute to quality of life. 

Standards and codes relating to buildings, such as the fire safety standards examined in this 

report, are generally mandatory only for new construction. Except in unusual cases where local 

codes specifically require compliance when retrofitting or remodeling, the implementation of 

standard and code requirements only propagate into the community at the pace of infrastructure 

growth or replacement. Given the long lifetime of building stock, it can take decades for the 

economic and social benefits of new building standards and codes to be realized. 

Although this report focuses on fire safety standards, it is important to realize that NIST 

researchers and staff are engaged in a wide range of activities across a diverse set of standards 

and standards-setting organizations. NIST also represents the United States in the development 

of international standards, promoting a safe, fair, and effective global marketplace. A summary 

of the impact of NIST’s work in a wide variety of other areas is available on NIST’s website 

(NIST, 2018b). 

Organization of This Report 

The remainder of this report proceeds as follows. Chapter 2 discusses NIST’s role in 

the development of fire safety standards generally. Chapter 3 discusses NIST’s role in the 

development of smoke alarm standards; for temporal and contextual clarity this chapter includes 

both the historic and ongoing case studies of smoke alarm standards. Chapter 4 presents a 

quantitative analysis of how the adoption of smoke alarm standards into building codes has 

affected the number and severity of fires, injuries, and fatalities. Similarly, Chapter 5 presents the 

case study of NIST’s role in the ongoing development of WUI standards. Chapter 6 presents the 

quantitative evidence on the potential benefits of WUI standards. Chapter 7 concludes with a 

brief reflection on NIST’s role in contributing to societal benefits. 
6 

2. The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Role in

the Development of Fire Safety Standards 

NIST’s fire research purportedly began in 1904, “when a pile of leaves on the Bureau 

grounds ignited and it was soon discovered that fire hoses from the different buildings could 

not be coupled together” (Gross, 1991, p. 119).4 Foreshadowing its continued standard-based 

approach for addressing fire safety challenges, NIST worked with NFPA to create a national 

standard for coupling hoses and fire hydrants. In 1914, a Fire Resistance section was established 

within NIST’s Heat Division, and the research conducted by this small team provided the 

underlying basis for some building codes. 

During its early decades of fire research, this team investigated such topics as the behavior 

of building support beams during fires, materials and equipment on ships, and the self-ignition 

properties of materials ranging from flammable liquids to photographic film. Their work 

expanded to research supporting voluntary standards for flammable fabrics in uses ranging from 

circus tents to children’s apparel.5 NIST provided standards testing services for government 

agencies, as well as to commercial industry groups in the 1950s, when the sole commercial 

laboratory—UL—became overloaded with requests. 

Throughout NIST’s research efforts, impacts on fire safety standards were not serendipitous 

but rather a focused outreach effort: 

It is worth noting that NBS staff have actively participated in national standardization 

organizations, notably NFPA and ASTM, from the beginning. There have also been contacts, 

cooperation and participation through the years with research and standardization organizations 

world-wide, including the British Fire Prevention Committee (as early as 1915), ISO [International 

Standards Organization], CIB [International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and 

Construction], Combustion Institute, IAFSS [International Association for Fire Safety Science], 

and the many other national and international organizations involved in fire research, testing and 

standardization. (Gross, 1991, p. 124) 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Fire Research Division 

Until about 1935, fire research at NIST was funded using less than 1 percent of NIST’s 

overall appropriation and through special programs sponsored by other agencies or industry. 

Funding grew after that time, and fire-focused sections were established within NIST. NIST’s 

 

4

 Much of the historical information in this paragraph and the subsequent paragraph comes from Gross (1991). 

5

 The Fabric Flammability Section at NIST was responsible for supporting the Flammable Fabrics Act of 1953, until 

the 1972 Consumer Products Safety Act transferred this responsibility to the newly created Consumer Products 

Safety Commission. 
7 

overall fire research effort was housed within the Building Research Division until major changes 

were implemented by the Fire Research and Safety Act of 1968 (Gross, 1991; Wright, 2003). This 

act expanded fire research, education, and training programs at NIST and also established the 

National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control. In 1973, the commission published its 

famous report, America Burning, which included several recommendations related to expanding 

fire research at NIST.6

 The report spurred passage of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act 

of 1974, which provided separate congressional appropriations of up to $3.5 million for fiscal 

year (FY) 1975 and $4 million for FY 1976 for a new NIST Center for Fire Research. This center 

initially consisted of two divisions: the Fire Science Division and the Fire Safety Engineering 

Division (Wright, 2003). The division structure was reorganized several times until the divisions 

were merged in 2000 into the single Fire Research Division that exists today.7

Today, NIST continues to play a key role in the standards development process to reduce 

the risk of fire in buildings and communities. NIST’s Fire Research Division has developed 

a road map (Hamins et al., 2012) that includes the Fire Research Division’s approach to 

supporting the development of standards and codes. The document includes a strategic vision 

that identifies key codes, standards, and broader SDO committees that should be developed 

or supported in order to achieve the Fire Research Division’s broader fire safety goals.8 The 

Strategic Roadmap (Hamins et al., 2012) notes that research can be translated to changes in 

code both through service on committees as well as through presentations to committees. The 

document also highlights the need to engage beyond the code and standards development 

process to collaborate with regulators and industry. 

 

6

 Indeed, NIST had proactively established a separate Office of Fire Programs in 1972 in anticipation of requests 

that would stem from the commission’s report (Gross, 1991). 

7

 The Fire Research Division first appeared in 1981 following NIST organizational changes, although it was one of 

several divisions within the Center for Fire Research at the time (Wright, 2003). Today, NIST’s Fire Research 

Division is composed of five research groups: Engineered Fire Safety Group, Fire Fighting Technology Group, 

Flammability Reduction Group, Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Group, and the National Fire Research Laboratory. 

The Fire Research Division also includes two NIST programs, the Fire Risk Reduction in Buildings Program and the 

Fire Risk Reduction in Communities Program. 

8

 Of particular relevance to the case studies discussed later in this report, the road map identifies UL 217 (Smoke 

Detectors and Alarms) and NFPA 72 (2019a) (National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code) as critical committees on 

smoke alarms. For WUI, three items are identified as in need of stage 1 measurement science. The first is work 

occurring under ASTM E05.14, including “new standards on firebrand penetration of vents; firebrand ignition of 

roofing, siding, window glazing, and decks; window vulnerability to firebrand assault” (Hamins et al., 2012). The 

second is replacing or improving test methods for buildings exposed to WUI fires, in support of the ICC’s WUI 

Building Code, which currently cites ASTM E119 (ASTM, undated b), UL 263, ASTM E1354 (ASTM, undated c), 

and FM4470. Third is the California State Building Code Chapter 7A (State Fire Marshal, 2007), which requires 

“improved standards for materials and construction methods for building exteriors exposed to wildfire” 

(Hamins et al., 2012). 
8 

Involvement in Standards Development Organizations 

To better understand how researchers in the Fire Research Division engage with standards 

development organizations, RAND surveyed the 42 researchers in the division in September 

2019.9

 (Survey details are available in Appendix A.) Twenty-four of the 29 respondents reported 

some level of involvement with an SDO over the course of their career at NIST, and 14 reported 

involvement in more than one SDO. Figure 2.1 shows the involvement of NIST researchers 

across prominent SDOs for fire safety standards. These researchers are most commonly involved 

with NFPA, ASTM International, and Underwriters Laboratories. 

Figure 2.1. Standards Development Organizations’ Involvement 

Among Current Researchers in the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology’s Fire Research Division 

SOURCE: RAND survey of researchers in NIST Fire Research Division, September 2019. 

NOTE: Fourteen researchers reported involvement in more than one SDO over the 

course of their career at NIST. Five of the 29 responding researchers reported no 

involvement in SDOs, and we were informed that those who did not respond to the 

survey were less likely to be involved in SDOs. 

Researchers’ involvement with these SDOs varies, as shown in Figure 2.2; they can serve 

as voting members or nonvoting members at different times for the same SDO. Current NIST 

researchers have held 27 voting member positions in various SDOs, and in four cases have 

served as a committee or subcommittee chair. Within some organizations, such as NFPA, 

certain committee or subcommittee chairs serve in a nonvoting capacity. 

 

9

 The sample included 27 full-time staff, three part-time staff, three contract researchers, six foreign guest 

researchers, and three postdoctoral associates. 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Other

International Code Council

International Organization for

Standardization

Underwriters Laboratories

ASTM International

National Fire Protection Association
9 

Figure 2.2. Standards Development Organizations’ Roles Held 

by Researchers in the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology’s Fire Research Division 

SOURCE: RAND survey of researchers in NIST Fire Research Division, September 2019. 

RAND spoke with representatives from NFPA, ASTM, Underwriters Laboratories, and ICC 

about their standards development procedures and NIST’s involvement, obtained and reviewed 

process documentation (agendas, proposals, comments, drafts, minutes) from each of these SDOs, 

and attended an NFPA committee meeting. Most SDOs categorize their committee members into 

different groups to ensure that the groups are broadly representative. The categorizations vary 

across SDOs. NIST is an “R/T—Applied Research/Testing Laboratory” member on NFPA 

committees, a “General Interest” member at ASTM, and a “Government” member at 

Underwriters Laboratories. 

NIST’s role in conducting research that contributes to the development of fire safety standards 

is not unique, but it is typically one of very few research organizations represented on relevant 

SDO committees addressing fire safety. As a result, NIST often effectively represents the fire 

safety research community in SDO committee deliberations, synthesizing and presenting the 

current state of knowledge about the technical aspects of the standards being considered. Other 

U.S. fire research organizations that were identified during our research include independent 

research organizations such as Southwest Research Institute and the Insurance Institute for 

Business & Home Safety (IBHS), and the Consumer Products Safety Commission, as well as 

academic groups such as the University of Texas Fire Research Group. 

NIST researchers indicated they participated in the development of numerous fire safety 

standards. Figure 2.3 shows specific standards in which researchers indicated they were involved 

and the number of respondents indicating their involvement in each standard. Titles for each 
10 

standard in the figure are listed in the survey instrument in Appendix A. Although this report 

focuses on a few specific aspects of fire safety—smoke alarms and WUI standards—Figure 2.3 

demonstrates the breadth of NIST’s role in fire safety standards. 

Figure 2.3. Number of National Institute of Standards and Technology Researchers 

Involved in Specific Fire Safety Standards 

SOURCE: RAND survey of researchers in NIST Fire Research Division, September 2019. 

0123456

UL 2075

UL 2034

UL 1994

UL 1484

UL 858

UL 790

UL 273

UL 268

UL 217

NFPA 5000

NFPA 1981

NFPA 1965

NFPA 1963

NFPA 1600

NFPA 1144

NFPA 1143

NFPA 1141

NFPA 211

NFPA 130

NFPA 101

NFPA 72

NFPA 2

ICC Wildland Urban Interface Code

ICC International Building Code/International Fire Code

ASTM WK23700

ASTM E2886

ASTM E2768

ASTM E2707-15

ASTM E1895

ASTM E1591

ASTM E1472

ASTM E1355

ASTM E119

ASTM E108

ASTM D3909/D3909M

ASTM D2898
11 

Interviews, SDO documentation, and our survey results show that researchers in NIST’s Fire 

Research Division commonly provide comments during the standards development process, 

present research findings at SDO events, and communicate with SDO committee members about 

standards. Figure 2.4 shows responses from our survey of the number of NIST Fire Division 

researchers who have submitted formal proposals, revisions, or comments to different SDOs. In 

addition to these forms of engagement, many researchers reported presenting research at SDO 

events or participating in meetings to discuss specific standards or revisions. NIST’s Fire 

Research Division has twice organized workshops that take place in conjunction with ASTM 

committee meetings. 

Figure 2.4. Have You Ever Submitted a Formal Proposal, Revision, or Comments for 

This Standards Development Organization? 

SOURCE: RAND survey of researchers in NIST Fire Research Division, September 2019. 

NOTE: Five researchers reported submitting formal proposals, revisions, or comments to more than one SDO. 

NIST’s role in the standards development process is a result of active engagement efforts by 

NIST researchers. According to our survey of NIST Fire Research Division researchers, the 

amount of time researchers report investing in supporting standards development can vary 

significantly, as illustrated in Figure 2.5. Most researchers report spending at least a few days 

per year attending an SDO meeting or otherwise supporting SDO activities. Many researchers 

report spending larger amounts of time supporting SDOs. Nine out of 29 respondents reported 

spending a few days per month or more supporting SDO activities, in addition to attending 

SDO meetings. These engagements are not new efforts, as Figure 2.6 indicates. The Fire Research 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

None

CAL FIRE Task Force

International Code Council

International Organization for Standardization

Underwriters Laboratories

ASTM International

National Fire Protection Association
12 

Figure 2.5. Which Most Closely Describes the Amount of Time You Spend on 

Activities with or for Standards Development Organizations? 

SOURCE: RAND survey of researchers in NIST Fire Research Division, September 2019. 

NOTE: Two of the 29 respondents did not answer this question; both of those respondents reported 

having no involvement with SDO activities. 

Figure 2.6. What Is Your Total Length of Service for All of the

Activities Listed in Figure 2.5? 

SOURCE: RAND survey of researchers in NIST Fire Research Division, September 2019. 

NOTE: Three of the 29 respondents did not answer this question; all three reported 

having no involvement with SDO activities. 

0123456789

I spend more time than any of the above options

on SDO activities

I attend meetings and spend a few days per

month supporting SDO activities

I attend meetings and spend a few days per year

supporting SDO activities

I typically attend one meeting per year OR spend

a few days per year supporting SDO activities

Only trivial amounts of time

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Less than 1 year

1 to 3 years

3 to 5 years

More than 5 years
13 

Division includes over a dozen current staff who have been engaging with SDOs for more than 

five years, and emeritus staff also have a lengthy record of engagement with SDOs. This level 

of engagement reflects a long-standing strategic decision by the Fire Research Division to 

improve nationwide fire safety through collaboration with SDOs.

The development of standards and codes is a complex process that involves a number of 

different stakeholder groups that sometimes have competing interests. Arriving at a standard that 

all stakeholders can agree on requires extensive coordination, deliberation, and compromise. In 

interviews with SDO representatives and others, we sought to elicit NIST’s role and performance 

in SDO committees beyond the participation statistics from our survey. These representatives 

generously shared available documentation of SDO committee activities and meetings. Some 

of this documentation directly cited NIST research and arguments, but the nature of the 

decisionmaking process makes it difficult to isolate the influence of any single individual or 

organization. Nonetheless, our interviews confirmed the value of NIST’s contributions to the 

standards development process. When asked about NIST’s contributions, representatives 

responded with statements such as “NIST engagement is very needed. We want more”; 

“NIST work has really been critical to improve the standard”; “NIST does really good work in 

a challenging environment”; “NIST is very thoughtful about focusing and prioritizing its research 

efforts to achieve the most benefit for standards development”; “NIST is very professional. 

The staff have great opinions and perspectives. Their contributions are invaluable. No other 

organization has contributed to the level of NIST.” In addition, at one SDO committee meeting 

we attended, discussion of a particular issue was set aside until the NIST representative could 

return and elaborate on what the research had shown on that topic. Such comments and actions 

make it clear that NIST plays a central role in the development of standards and codes. 

Conclusion 

The development of fire safety standards is an involved process that includes basic research, 

development of standardized testing methods, and the coordination and integration of stakeholder 

needs by SDOs. As summarized generally in this chapter and more specifically in subsequent 

chapters, NIST has played a critical role in research, test development, and the inter-stakeholder 

collaboration through SDO committee work that is required to incorporate that research into 

standards. While NIST collaborates with a wide variety of other entities, NIST’s focus on the 

fundamental measurement research required to support standards makes it a relatively unique 

organization, with other research organizations often benefiting from that work. 

 
14 

3. Smoke Alarm Standards 

As introduced in Chapter 1, two of the case studies we used to examine the impacts of fire 

safety standards focus on standards associated with smoke alarms—a historical NIST research 

program (encouraging the adoption of smoke alarms) and an established ongoing NIST research 

program (improving smoke alarm performance). Figure 3.1 presents a tailored version of the 

logic model introduced in Chapter 1 to chart the path from NIST activities to fire outcomes 

associated with smoke alarm safety standards. The highlighted cells reflect the focus of this 

chapter. This chapter discusses NIST activities related to the development of smoke alarm safety 

standards and the changes to standards that were driven in part by those NIST activities. Chapter 4 

discusses later steps of this smoke alarm logic model. 

Figure 3.1. Logic Model of National Institute of Standards and Technology Activities and 

Smoke Alarm Safety Standards 

Case Study 1: The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Role 

in Encouraging the Adoption of Smoke Alarms 

Although smoke alarms are ubiquitous today, they were quite rare prior to the 1970s. NIST 

research played a critical role from the late 1960s through the late 1970s in rapidly shifting 

home smoke alarms from novelty to standard practice. 

Research and Activities That Supported Development of Standards and Codes 

NIST has long been engaged in research relevant to smoke alarm performance and use, with 

the earliest work on the performance of smoke detectors taking place in the 1920s and 1930s 

(Bukowski, 2001; Wright, 2003). However, Bright (1974) credits early theoretical work by 

McGuire and Ruscoe (1962) for spurring NIST’s interest in smoke alarms. McGuire and Ruscoe 

(1962) pointed out the theoretical life-saving value of smoke alarms (relative to heat detectors) 

at a time when neither was prevalent, as highlighted in Figure 3.2. Using a sample of 342 fire 

deaths that occurred in Ontario, Canada between 1956 and 1960, McGuire and Ruscoe used their 

own judgement and knowledge of each warning system’s capabilities to determine whether 
15 

Figure 3.2. Early Research on the Theoretical Value of a Smoke Detector 

Relative to a Heat Detector 

SOURCE: McGuire and Ruscoe (1962), as presented in Bright (1974). 

either warning system might have prevented each death. Their conclusion was that smoke 

detectors would have prevented 41 percent of those deaths, while heat detectors would have 

prevented 8 percent. This work, along with subsequent studies, led NIST and others to focus 

on documenting the potential life-saving capabilities of smoke detectors. 

Starting in the late 1960s, NIST’s involvement in a number of projects and other activities 

directly contributed to a broader understanding of the benefit of home smoke alarms, their 

widespread adoption, and development of the first smoke alarm device standard. Table 3.1 

summarizes several important studies and milestones, which are discussed below. 

An important early contribution by NIST occurred during the U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development’s (HUD) Operation Breakthrough program, which ran from 1969 

through the early 1970s. The purpose of this demonstration program was to incentivize the 

development and adoption of new home building technologies and codes. NIST was charged 

with developing model building code “Guide Criteria.” NIST researchers included the 

installation of smoke alarms as part of the Guide Criteria. Although smoke alarms were not 

actually installed in the ~ 2,800 demonstration homes built as part of Operation Breakthrough, 

this was the first recommendation for their use in homes and is widely credited for introducing 

smoke alarms into building codes (Staats, 1976; Foote, 1995; Bukowski, 2001). 

When Hurricane Agnes struck in 1972, HUD provided 17,000 mobile homes for residents in 

Pennsylvania displaced by flooding. In choosing the specifications, HUD asked NIST to apply 

some of the lessons learned from Operation Breakthrough. Since fire losses in mobile homes 

were known to be much higher than in conventional homes, NIST successfully recommended 
16 

Table 3.1. Timeline of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Key Contribution 

to Smoke Alarm Adoption and Standardization 

Date Event NIST Role Impact 

Late 1960s Operation Breakthrough 

initiative to develop new 

building technologies 

NIST was charged with developing 

building code Guide Criteria for 

demonstration projects 

 NIST Guide Criteria included 

installing smoke alarms in all homes 

1972 Hurricane Agnes Based on NIST Guide Criteria from 

Operation Breakthrough, smoke 

alarms were installed in 17,000 

mobile homes provided for 

temporary housing 

 Smoke alarms greatly reduced fire 

deaths and injuries relative to homes 

without alarms 

 Mobile home industry subsequently 

voluntarily required smoke alarms in 

all units 

1973 Collaborative research 

with UL to develop a 

smoke alarm standard 

Technical research on smoke alarm 

performance 

 Introduction of UL 217 

 Smoke alarm production increased 

from 50,000 nationwide in 1971 to 

12–14 million in 1977 

1975, 1977 Indiana Dunes Tests Full-scale tests of commercial 

smoke alarms in actual homes 

 Revealed superior performance of 

smoke alarms over heat detectors 

 NFPA 74 and ordinances began 

requiring smoke alarms on every 

floor of new and existing homes 

 Fire deaths in compliant homes 

began dropping precipitously 

 U.S. fire deaths by dropped by 50% 

between 1975 and 1998 

that smoke alarms be installed in the mobile homes. Fire data from these mobile homes over 

the next few years showed remarkable benefits from the smoke alarms’ installation: while the 

number of fires was no different from expected fire rates for mobile homes without smoke 

alarms, the number of deaths and injuries from these fires was far lower than expected rates, 

indicating that smoke alarms provide valuable warning time that allows occupants to safely 

escape. These results led the mobile home manufacturing industry to begin including smoke 

alarms in all mobile homes, which represented the first systematic policy of installing smoke 

alarms in homes (Gross, 1991; Bukowski, 2001; Wright, 2003). 

In addition to efforts promoting the inclusion of smoke alarms in homes, NIST also sought 

to advance the effectiveness of smoke alarm technology. Curious about the results from the 

deployment of alarms after Hurricane Agnes, NIST and UL collaborated on an effort to test the 

performance of commercially available smoke alarms. This work identified a number of design 

improvements and specifications related to sensitivity, electrical requirements, and testing and 

led to the first smoke alarm device standard, UL 217: Standard for Smoke Alarms. The first 

edition of this standard was introduced in 1974 (Bukowski, 2001). The introduction of this 

standard and the growing adoption of ordinances requiring smoke alarms led smoke alarm 

production to increase from 50,000 units nationwide in 1971 to 12–14 million units in 1977 

(Gross, 1991). 
17 

Some of the most influential NIST research was informally known as the Indiana Dunes Tests 

(Bukowski et al., 1975; Harpe, Waterman, and Christian, 1977). Prior to this work, information 

about smoke alarm performance had been based on laboratory data and engineering judgement. 

The Indiana Dunes Tests, conducted in abandoned single-family homes located at the Indiana 

Dunes National Lakeshore, were the first full-scale tests of smoke alarm performance under 

conditions simulating actual home fires. They measured the performance of commercial smoke 

alarms in fires of real furniture in actual homes under controlled conditions. 

These tests provided a number of important observations and findings that led to improved 

understanding of fire development, smoke generation and movement, and smoke alarm 

performance. Some of the most important contributions included the following: 

 the introduction of the practice of reporting smoke alarm performance in terms of the 

available escape time (the time interval between when the alarm sounds and when 

conditions become untenable for safe escape) compared with the required escape time 

(the time required to exit the home) 

 the discovery of the superior performance of smoke alarms compared with heat detectors; 

heat detectors consistently failed to provide adequate escape time, while smoke alarms 

routinely provided adequate time. This further bolstered the case for the benefits of 

smoke alarms. 

 the observation that smoke alarms on the second floor of a home had marginal performance 

for fires on the first floor. At the time of the tests, the standard on smoke alarm placement 

required smoke alarms only on floors with bedrooms. Thus, homes in which all bedrooms 

were upstairs were not required to have a smoke alarm on the ground floor. 

 the finding that fires originating within closed bedrooms led to lethal conditions in the 

bedroom before a smoke alarm outside the bedroom was triggered 

 the observation that photoelectric detectors were relatively more sensitive to smoldering 

fires and that ionization detectors were relatively more sensitive to flaming fires 

 the finding that heating and air conditioning systems, stairwells, and other home layout 

features influence the movement of smoke and performance of smoke alarms. 

Changes to Standards 

These tests had an important impact on the use of smoke alarms. NFPA 74: Recommended 

Good Practices for the Installation of Automatic Fire Alarm Systems for Private Dwellings was 

revised to require smoke alarms on every floor of homes;10 the growth of local ordinances 

requiring smoke alarms accelerated, in some cases making smoke alarm requirements apply to 

existing homes; and, most importantly, fire deaths, which had been steady for many years, began 

to drop significantly in compliant homes. Table 3.2 presents a timeline of key smoke alarm 

 

10 This standard, later renamed “Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Household Fire Warning 

Equipment,” was incorporated into NFPA 72: National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code in 1993 and subsequently 

withdrawn. 
18 

Table 3.2. Timeline of Key Residential Smoke Alarm Standards 

Date Development 

1967 First edition of NFPA 74, Standard on the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Household 

Fire Warning Equipment 

~ 1970 NFPA 74 first includes requirements on smoke alarm locations 

1974 First edition of UL 217, Standard for Smoke Alarms 

standards and code developments during the 1960s and 1970s. A decline in U.S. fire deaths by 

50 percent between 1975 and 1998 has been largely attributed to the widespread adoption of 

smoke alarms (Bukowski, 2001). 

Participation in Standards Development Organizations 

NIST researchers have been involved in the development of home smoke alarm standards 

and codes at least since the mid-1960s. Information about NIST’s involvement in SDOs during 

this time period is limited, but NIST’s influence is clear. Research by Richard Bright, of NIST, 

was central to the inclusion of smoke alarms in the Operation Breakthrough building code Guide 

Criteria and in the mobile homes after Hurricane Agnes. It was also a contributing factor in early 

tests of commercial smoke alarms, which revealed the need for a device standard. Although 

technically at UL at the time, Richard Bukowski worked with NIST (and in residence at NIST 

for part of the time) on smoke alarm research that led to the development of UL 217 and was 

the leader of the Indiana Dunes Tests. He moved to NIST full time shortly thereafter. He was an 

active member of the UL 217/268 Standard Technical Panel and NFPA 72 Technical Committees 

until his retirement in the mid-2000s. 

Case Study 2: The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s 

Role in Updated Smoke Alarm Performance Requirements 

Since the mid-1970s, the use of smoke alarms in homes has grown substantially, largely 

facilitated by the adoption of state and local ordinances requiring their use. While the early smoke 

alarm research described in the previous section focused on the development of a standard for 

smoke alarms in homes and on their adoption, this second phase of smoke alarm work targeted 

specific aspects of smoke alarm performance: updated fire tests on synthetic furnishing materials 

and resistance to nuisance alarms. 

Research and Activities That Support Development of Standards and Codes 

For one aspect of this work, NIST researchers focused on revisiting smoke alarm design and 

testing in light of the shift to the use of largely synthetic materials in upholstered furniture. These 

materials (polyurethane and plastics) were known to burn more quickly and have different smoke 

generation characteristics than do natural materials. While the public’s transition to synthetic 
19 

furnishing materials had been occurring for many years, smoke alarms were still being designed 

and tested to respond to fires from natural furnishing materials. 

Another aspect of this research focused on reducing nuisance alarms, stemming primarily from 

cooking aerosols and bathroom shower mist. Beyond being inconvenient, nuisance alarms lead 

home occupants to disable smoke alarms, thereby leaving them unprotected. NFPA studies have 

found that 17 percent of civilian fire deaths occurred in homes with nonoperational smoke alarms 

and that nuisance alarms were the leading cause for disabling smoke alarms (Ahrens, 2004; 2019). 

A survey conducted by RAND as part of this study and discussed further in Chapter 3 found that 

more than one-third of households reported having disabled a smoke alarm to prevent nuisance 

alarms, providing compelling evidence that this issue is widespread. Causes and consequences 

of nuisance alarms are discussed in more detail in NFPA Task Group on Smoke Detection 

Follow-Up (2009). 

Table 3.3 lists some of the key developments in this second phase of NIST smoke alarm 

research. 

Table 3.3. Timeline of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Key Contributions 

to Updated Smoke Alarm Performance Requirements 

Date Event NIST Role Impact 

2000–2004; 

2008 

Home Smoke Alarm 

Tests

Research experiments on 

smoke alarm performance 

were conducted from 2000 to 

2002; NIST published the 

original report in 2004, and a 

revised version in 2008 

Measurement of smoke production rates for 

synthetic furnishing materials; 

characterization of nuisance alarm potential 

for different cooking scenarios 

2008 NFPA 72 Task Group 

on Smoke Detection 

Technology 

Staff members in the task 

group (TG) and on NFPA 72 

Technical Committee; NIST 

research informed TG 

recommendations 

Developed recommendations for minimum 

distances for locating smoke alarms away 

from cooking appliances; recommendations 

adopted in 2010 edition of NFPA 72 

2008–2015 UL 217/268 Task 

Group on Reducing 

Nuisance Alarms and 

New Fire Test Task 

Group 

Technical research & 

publications, staff member in 

TGs and on UL 217/268 

Technical Panel, and multiple 

research presentations to 

SDOs and elsewhere 

2013 edition of NFPA 72 added requirement 

that by 2016 smoke alarms located near 

cooking appliances must be resistant to 

nuisance alarms and that by 2019 all smoke 

alarms must be resistant to nuisance alarms, 

although these deadlines were subsequently 

delayed. Edition 7 of UL 217 (2015) included 

new cooking nuisance alarm resistance test 

and polyurethane fire tests that took effect 

May 2020 

2014 NIST Technical Note 

1837 (Cleary, 2014) 

Technical research providing 

performance criteria for new 

smoldering and flaming 

polyurethane foam fire tests 

proposed for ANSI/UL 217 and 

ANSI/UL 268 

Provided an agreed-upon set of test designs 

and test performance requirements that 

were incorporated into a 7th edition of UL 

217 (2015), resolving a previous impasse on 

efforts to reduce nuisance alarms 
20 

The first major effort to reevaluate smoke alarm design and performance was the Home 

Smoke Alarm Tests conducted from 2000–2002 (Bukowski et al., 2008). These tests, which 

were conducted in cooperation with several other organizations, were in some ways similar to 

the Indiana Dunes tests in that they examined the performance of commercial detectors in 

realistic home settings. However, they differed in several ways from the Indiana Dunes tests, 

including using furnishings constructed with modern materials and exploring the occurrence 

of nuisance alarms. 

A key contribution of this work was measurement of smoke development rates for fires of 

synthetic furnishing materials, which were significantly faster than for the natural materials 

used in the Indiana Dunes Tests. The impact of more rapid fire escalation was exacerbated by 

researchers imposing more stringent criteria for the onset of unsafe conditions. These effects 

combined to reduce the available escape time, thus decreasing the effective performance level 

of smoke alarms. The tests also confirmed the greater relative sensitivities of photoelectric and 

ionization detectors to smoldering and flaming fires, respectively. Performance of commercially 

available smoke alarms of either type was nonetheless generally sufficient to provide adequate 

escape time. 

A second major contribution of these tests was the first systematic investigation of the 

conditions that generate nuisance alarms. Tests were conducted for several different types of 

typical cooking procedures and other activities (e.g., toasting, frying, broiling, burning candles, 

bathroom showering). The results showed that smoke alarms should not be located near cooking 

appliances or bathrooms. The tests also showed that ionization detectors were more sensitive 

than photoelectric detectors to nuisance alarms stemming from cooking activities. Although the 

problem of nuisance alarms had long been recognized and had begun to be addressed through 

restrictions on smoke alarm placement as early as 1993, this was the first time the nuisance alarm 

problem had been tackled in a controlled way. 

Subsequent to the Home Smoke Alarm Tests project, the NFPA 72 Technical Committee 

formed the Task Group on Smoke Detection Technology. Two of the TG members were NIST 

staff, and the Home Smoke Alarm Tests and other NIST research factored heavily in informing 

the TG’s recommendations. The main contribution of this TG was specific recommendations 

about the minimum distance that smoke alarms should be located away from cooking appliances. 

It also explored the effectiveness of “hush” buttons, which allow users to temporarily silence the 

alarm signal in the case of a nuisance alarm, but found no evidence of their impact.11 These 

recommendations were then adopted in the 2010 edition of NFPA 72, for which two NIST staff 

members were on the technical committee (NFPA Task Group on Smoke Detection Technology, 

2008; NFPA Task Group on Smoke Detection Follow-Up, 2009). 

 

11 The intention of including a hush button is to dissuade occupants from permanently disabling smoke alarms in 

response to nuisance alarms. 
21 

In the ensuing years, NIST was closely involved in efforts to design and implement tests to 

be included in UL 217 for (a) resistance to nuisance alarms and (b) sensitivity to flaming and 

smoldering fires of furniture made from synthetic materials. NIST researchers conducted new 

experiments and presented the findings on multiple occasions (Cleary and Chernovsky, 2013; 

Cleary, 2014). The first outcome of these efforts was that a requirement for nuisance alarm 

resistance was added to NFPA 72 in the 2013 edition. This requirement was originally slated 

to become effective in 2016, but the effective date was subsequently extended to 2022. 

Two UL task forces were created during this period to address these topics, and NIST staff and 

research were central to their work. The process was marked by disagreement among the UL 217 

Standard Technical Panel members, and multiple proposals failed. NIST research, particularly 

by Cleary (2014), played a pivotal role in reaching consensus.12 Meetings of the Standard 

Technical Panel meetings referred frequently to NIST research, comments by a NIST researcher, 

and responses to those. Ultimately a set of test designs and test performance requirements were 

agreed upon and incorporated into the seventh edition of UL 217, published in 2015. These new 

requirements became effective in May, 2020. When the new test performance requirements were 

established, NIST conducted a set of experiments with dozens of smoke alarm models from seven 

manufacturers to assess their compliance with the new standard. None of them met the new test 

performance requirements (Cleary, 2016). 

Changes to Standards 

The evolution of standard and code requirements since 1989 is shown in Table 3.4. The 

gradual evolution of smoke alarm placement and technology restrictions represents an increasing 

understanding of the conditions under which nuisance alarms occur. The revision of UL 217 in 

2015 represented a fundamentally new approach to dealing with nuisance alarms: Rather than 

regulate the location and technology of smoke alarms, this new standard sets nuisance-resistance 

performance requirements that are independent of location and technology. 

Experience gained from widespread smoke alarm use showed that a high proportion of 

smoke alarms in homes were nonoperational and that the most common reason for this was that 

smoke alarms had been deliberately disabled by occupants in response to repeated nuisance 

alarms. As the magnitude of this issue became apparent, NFPA 72, which primarily governs 

placement of smoke alarms, gradually introduced measures to reduce the likelihood of nuisance 

alarms. These measures included limiting how close smoke alarms can be placed to cooking 

appliances and bathrooms, requiring hush buttons, and prescribing the allowable type of 

detector technology. 

 

12 Personal communication with NIST Fire Research Division staff. We can confirm the culture of deference to 

and reliance on NIST’s scientific expertise at SDO meetings: At a 2019 NFPA meeting attended by RAND, one 

point of disagreement was put on hold until the relevant NIST researcher was available to describe the associated 

scientific literature. 
22 

Table 3.4. Timeline of Key Residential Smoke Alarm Standard and Code Developments 

Date Development 

1989a NFPA 74 

 Smoke alarms required outside each sleeping area and on every floor, including basements 

1993 First edition of NFPA 72; NFPA 74 withdrawn 

 Smoke alarms required in bedrooms (new construction only) 

 Smoke alarms not allowed within 3 feet of a door to a kitchen or bathroom containing a shower or tub 

 Smoke alarms not allowed within 3 feet of supply registers of a forced air heating or cooling system 

1999 NFPA 72 

 If within 20 feet of a cooking appliance, smoke alarm must have an alarm silencer or be photoelectric 

2007 NFPA 72 

Requirement for smoke alarms in bedrooms extended to include both new and existing construction 

2010 NFPA 72 

 Smoke alarms not allowed within 10 feet of a cooking appliance unless designed for use in close 

proximity to a cooking appliance, except: 

– Photoelectric smoke alarms may be located 6 feet or more from a cooking appliance if (a) kitchen 

has no partitions or headers and (b) placing it more than 10 feet away would prohibit compliance 

with other parts of the code 

 Added additional provisions for smoke alarm placement on ceilings with joists or beams 

2013 NFPA 72 

 If between 6 and 20 feet of a cooking appliance, smoke alarms must be resistant to nuisance alarms 

(effective in 2016) 

 All smoke alarms must be resistant to nuisance alarms (effective in 2019) 

2015 UL 217 

 Added new smoke alarm tests and test performance requirements, effective in 2020 

 Smoldering and flaming polyurethane fire tests 

 Broiling hamburger nuisance alarm test 

2016 NFPA 72 

 If between 6 and 20 feet of a cooking appliance, smoke alarms must be resistant to nuisance alarms 

(effective in 2019) 

2019 NFPA 72 

 If between 6 and 20 feet of a cooking appliance, smoke alarms must be resistant to nuisance alarms 

(effective in 2022) 

 Removed requirement that all smoke alarms must be resistant to nuisance alarms 

NOTE: a Status as of this date, but possibly first introduced earlier. 

Recognizing that these were second-best measures, the standards development community, led 

by NIST research and guided by NIST staff involvement in task force and committee activities, 

sought to develop a requirement for resistance to nuisance alarms that does not depend on smoke 

alarm location or technology. With the implementation of this new requirement beginning in 2020, 

future editions of NFPA 72 may no longer need to include smoke alarm placement and technology 

restrictions intended to minimize nuisance alarms. Indeed, a proposal for the 2022 edition of NFPA 

72 removes all existing occurrences of prescribing a particular smoke alarm detection technology. 

The other major outcome of this phase of smoke alarm research, updating test performance 

requirements to reflect conditions created in fires of modern synthetic furnishing materials, is 

the sort of revision expected to be necessary from time to time as the environment in which a 

technology is used evolves. 
23 

Participation in Standards Development Organizations 

NIST has had a constant presence on the key smoke alarm SDO committees since the 1970s. 

NIST researcher Richard Bukowski was an active member of the UL 217/268 Standard Technical 

Panel and of NFPA 72 Technical Committees throughout his career, starting in the 1970s until 

his retirement in the late 2000s. Thomas Cleary of NIST phased into both of these roles in the 

mid-2000s and remains in them currently. NIST smoke alarm-related membership in SDOs is 

summarized in Table 3.5. 

Table 3.5. The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Involvement in 

Smoke Alarm Standards Development Organization Committees 

SDO Standard Committee Role Category Time Period 

NFPA NFPA 72: National 

Fire Alarm and 

Signaling Code 

Single- and MultipleStation Alarms and 

Household Fire Alarm 

Systems 

Voting member, 

chair (1993–1999) 

R/T—Applied 

Research/Testing 

1987–present 

NFPA NFPA 72: National 

Fire Alarm and 

Signaling Code 

Technical correlating 

committee 

Voting member, 

nonvoting member 

(1996–1999) 

R/T—Applied 

Research/Testing 

1993–2010 

UL UL 217: Standard 

for Smoke Alarms 

Smoke detectors and 

alarms 

Member Government 1974–present 

ICC International 

Building Code, 

International Fire 

Code 

International Building 

Code Fire Safety Code 

Committee 

Member Unknown–presenta

NOTE: aJason Averill was on ICC’s committee until approximately 2012. As of 2020, Nelson Bryner is on several 

ICC committees involving fire codes, although not on the smoke alarm committee. (Personal communication with 

NIST Fire Research Division staff.) 

Review of UL standard technical panel and NFPA technical committee materials shows 

that NIST has maintained a central role in standard and code development through research, 

participation in committees and task groups, presentations to committees and task groups, 

development of proposals for standard revisions, comments on other proposals, and 

committee votes.13

UL 217 standard development materials show that NIST comments and proposals, as well as 

references to NIST research reports, proposals, comments, are ubiquitous throughout the highly 

technical, often contentious exchanges. NIST is one of the primary sources of research, along 

with research from UL, the Consumer Products Safety Commission, and NFPA’s Fire Protection 

Research Foundation. 

 

13 Documentation of the UL 217 standard development process spanning 2007–2015 was provided by UL. 

Documentation of the NFPA 72 standard development process spanning 1987–2019 is available at NFPA (2019a). 
24 

NFPA 72 standard development materials similarly refer to NIST research, proposals, 

comments, and votes. A new edition of NFPA 72 is released every three years. Proposals and 

comments from NIST researchers are present in several of the revisions, and references to NIST 

work are made in proposals and comments from other SDO members in every round of revisions. 

In addition, multiple NIST research reports have been cited in NFPA 72 since 1990. 

Conclusion 

NIST research and other activity summarized in Tables 3.1, 3.3, and 3.5 provided important 

contributions to our understanding of the effectiveness of smoke alarms, the development of 

smoke alarm standards, and the widespread adoption of smoke alarms. This work also supported 

subsequent improvements in smoke alarm performance and reducing the prevalence of nuisance 

alarms. NIST involvement in early smoke alarm research started in the late 1960s, and much 

critical work demonstrating the effectiveness and potential benefits of smoke alarms occurred in 

the 1970s. This work was a critical element in transformation of smoke alarms from a novelty to 

a conventional household feature. 

With the efficacy of smoke alarms solidly proven by the early 2000s, subsequent NIST 

work has focused on minimizing nuisance alarms. As will be discussed in Chapter 4, this work 

is important for public safety, as households commonly disable smoke alarms to prevent 

nuisance alarms. 

 
25 

4. The Impact of Smoke Alarm Standards on Fire Outcomes 

As discussed in Chapter 3, NIST research and participation in formal standards development 

processes have contributed substantially to the development of smoke alarm standards. These 

standards cover requirements for the number and location of smoke alarms in homes, smoke 

alarm performance, and smoke alarm test methods. In this chapter, we focus on quantitative 

analysis of the relationship between changes to building codes (the third step of the logic model) 

and improved fire outcomes (the fifth step of the logic model) in which these standards are 

adopted in building codes and generate benefits, as shown in Figure 4.1. We are not aware of 

systematic nation-wide records that would allow us to observe and track the intermediary step 

of changes to building designs and retrofits of existing buildings. 

Figure 4.1. Logic Model of National Institute of Standards and Technology Activities and 

Smoke Alarm Safety Standards 

To evaluate the value of smoke alarm safety standards, we examined the relationship 

between a state’s adoption of specific editions of smoke alarm standards into the residential 

building code and fire outcomes in that state. If more current editions of smoke alarm standards 

are more protective than older editions, then states with codes that incorporate more current 

standards are expected to have more favorable fire outcomes (reduced fire losses), assuming 

other conditions are the same. The link between the adoption of smoke alarm standards and fire 

outcomes occurs through the incorporation of standards into building codes, application and 

enforcement of those codes in the residential building stock,14 and the effectiveness of those 

standards in improving fire outcomes. If codes are not applied, enforced, and effective, their 

adoption is of no consequence. 

 

14 Most building codes apply to new construction only, so they work their way into the building stock through 

addition or replacement of buildings. 
26 

Previous Research on the Benefit of Code Adoption, Enforcement, and 

Smoke Alarms 

Past studies have examined the link between steps four and five of the logic model in 

controlled experiments concerning the effectiveness of installed smoke alarms in improving fire 

outcomes. We are not aware of any prior studies that examine the relationship between code 

adoption and fire safety outcomes, although such studies have been done for other hazards. 

The Benefits of Code Adoption and Enforcement in Other Settings 

Research institutes that support the insurance industry have focused much attention on 

building code enforcement, with particular attention to rating states’ enforcement quality so that 

insurers can incorporate that information into the insurance rates and risk assessments. IBHS 

provides state-level ratings that are intended to serve as an aggregated reflection of code adoption, 

enforcement, training, and implementation for 18 hurricane-prone states (IBHS, 2018). A similar 

ranking provided by ISO is intended to reflect both the strength and the enforcement of codes, as 

well as a ranking of communities’ fire suppression capabilities.

15 Metrics such as these are used 

by insurers to help determine risk. 

IBHS (2014) shows buildings constructed after the adoptions of 1996 building codes suffered 

less damage in Hurricane Charlie than those built prior to the 1996 codes.16 Similarly, IBHS 

(2009) shows that homes built to the codes outlined in the Fortified program, a voluntary 

construction and reroofing program based on building codes developed by IBHS, suffered less 

damage in Hurricane Ike than other homes.17 Recent academic studies have found similar results. 

Several studies have examined Florida’s adoption of a new statewide code in 2001 and found 

that that doing so reduced windstorm losses by 72 percent (Simmons, Czajkowski, and Done, 

2018; Done, Simmons, and Czajkowski, 2018) and that intensive local-level implementation of 

these codes further reduced damages by 15–25 percent (Czajkowski, Simmons, and Done, 2017). 

As mentioned previously, we are not aware of any similar studies on the link between codes and 

fire safety outcomes. 

The Benefits of Smoke Alarms 

For evidence on the effectiveness of fire safety codes’ requirements, a number of studies 

have examined the effectiveness of smoke alarms. The general approach is to compare outcomes 

of fires in occupied homes that have smoke alarms with those in occupied homes that do not. 

 

15 More information about ISO’s Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule is available at Thomure (undated). 

More information about ISO’s measure of states’ fire protection capabilities is available at ISO (undated), 

16 See also IBHS (undated a). 

17 See also IBHS (undated a). 
27 

This approach examines the impact of the smoke alarm technology itself and is independent of 

any variation in standards, codes, or code application and enforcement. While the effectiveness 

of smoke alarms depends on details such as the type, number, and location of smoke alarms, 

studies of smoke alarm effectiveness generally simply record the presence or absence of at least 

one working smoke alarm in the home. The most common fire outcome used in studies of smoke 

alarm effectiveness is fire deaths. Because all data are collected through local fire departments, 

such analyses present estimates for reported fires only. 

We searched the academic and other technical literature for analyses of the effectiveness of 

smoke alarms. The studies we identified are summarized in Table 4.1. To facilitate comparison, 

we recast the results for each study in terms of the fatality rate (fatalities per reported fire or fatal 

fires per reported fire18) in homes with working smoke alarms divided by the fatality rate in 

homes without working smoke alarms. This ratio represents the relative risk of fatalities in 

homes with and without smoke alarms. A relative risk value of less than one indicates that the 

fatality rate in homes with smoke alarms is less than that in homes without smoke alarms. 

Table 4.1. Relative Risk of Fatalities per Fire in Homes With and Without Smoke Alarms 

Study 

Relative 

Riska Date Location Data Source 

Runyan et al. (1992) 0.428 1988–1989 North Carolina Interviews with fire officials 

Rhode et al. (2016) 0.463 1998–2013 Queensland, Australia Fire dept. data 

Ahrens (2008) 0.487 2000–2004 United States NFIRSb 

Ahrens (2011) 0.509 2003–2006 United States NFIRS 

Ahrens (2019) 0.463 2012–2016 United States NFIRS 

Gilbert (2018) 1.46 2009–2016 United States NFIRS 

NOTES: 

a Relative risk = (fatality rate in homes with a smoke alarm) / (fatality rate in homes without a smoke alarm), 

where fatality rate = ∑fatalities / ∑reported fires or ∑fatal fires / ∑reported fires. 

b NFIRS = National Fire Incident Reporting System, which we also use for this report’s subsequent analysis. 

The first five studies in Table 4.1 show a remarkably consistent relative risk of 0.4 to 0.5, 

indicating that the presence of a smoke alarm is associated with a fatality rate of less than half of 

that of homes without a smoke alarm. This indicates that smoke alarms provide early warning of a 

fire, allowing occupants to escape injury. Gilbert (2018) shows the opposite effect—namely, that 

the fatality rate in homes with a smoke alarm is greater than that in homes without a smoke alarm. 

The author infers that this somewhat surprising finding results from occupants preferentially 

 

18 As long as the number of fatalities per fatal fire is the same in cases with and without smoke alarms, both 

measures of fatality rate will give the same relative risk. 
28 

extinguishing (and hence not reporting) less dangerous fires when smoke alarms are present, 

leaving only the more dangerous fires in the data for reported fires. 

The relative risks shown in Table 4.1 provide an estimate of the life-saving effectiveness of 

smoke alarms per fire. But we are ultimately interested in the effect of smoke alarms on fatalities 

per home. Hence, any association between the presence of smoke alarms and the incidence of 

fires is an important consideration as well. 

Several of the studies in Table 4.1 show that the number of fires per home is far lower for 

homes with smoke alarms than for homes without smoke alarms. The mechanism for this is not 

entirely clear, but the best explanation is that smoke alarms allow occupants to prevent an 

imminent fire (Gilbert, 2018; Ahrens, 2019). Further, Gilbert (2018) also finds a difference 

between the reporting rate of fires in homes with and without smoke alarms. As with the fire 

incidence rate, the fire reporting rate is lower in homes with smoke alarms than in homes 

without. Homes with smoke alarms thus have fewer fires per home, fewer reported fires per 

actual fire, and, with the exception of one study, fewer fatalities per reported fire than homes 

without smoke alarms. These factors combine to result in far fewer fatalities per home in homes 

with smoke alarms compared with homes without smoke alarms. 

Using the results of Gilbert (2018), we have estimated the relative risk of fatalities per 

home in homes with and without smoke alarms for each of the studies listed in Table 4.1. When 

considering the combined effects of the reductions in fires per home, reported fires per actual 

fire, and fatalities per reported fire, the risk of a fire fatality in a home with a smoke alarm is 

7 to 26 times lower than in a home without a smoke alarm (Table 4.2). 

Table 4.2. Relative Risk of Fatalities per Home in Homes With and Without Smoke Alarms 

Study 

Relative Risk, 

Fires per Home

Relative Risk, 

Reported Fires 

per Fire

Relative Risk, 

Fatalities per 

Reported Fireb 

Relative Risk, 

Fatalities per 

Home 

Runyan et al. (1992) 0.428 0.038 

Rhode et al. (2016) 0.463 0.042 

Ahrens (2008) 0.487 0.044 

Ahrens (2011) 0.509 0.046 

Ahrens (2019) 0.463 0.042 

Gilbert (2018) 0.417 0.215a 1.46 0.131 

NOTES: 

aAverage of values from Table 3 of Gilbert (2018). 

b From Table 4.1. 

Interpretations of these results are complicated by at least three issues. 

First, none of the studies attempts to match cases with and without smoke alarms. If, for 

example, factors other than smoke alarms that influence the risk of fire fatalities (e.g., construction, 
29 

furnishings, occupant behaviors) differ systematically between homes with and without smoke 

alarms, then the actual effect of smoke alarms would differ from the reported values. We are not 

aware of any evidence for such differences, but it seems reasonable that smoke alarms are more 

prevalent in newer homes, which may pose lower fire risk for other reasons as well. 

Second, many fire records do not report on the presence or absence of a smoke alarm and are 

therefore excluded from the analyses. Evidence indicates that smoke alarm presence or absence 

is reported more often in fatal fires than in nonfatal fires (Gilbert, 2018). However, the effect of 

this inconsistency depends on whether the underreporting differs between homes with smoke 

alarms and homes without smoke alarms, which is unknown. 

Finally, not all of the studies confirm whether a smoke alarm present at a fire was functional 

or not, and this introduces uncertainty in the assignment of smoke alarm presence or absence. 

Having discussed the strong association between the presence of a smoke alarm and the 

reduction in the risk of fire fatalities, we now return to the larger question of the relationship 

between the adoption of smoke alarm standards into building codes and the risk of fire fatalities. 

Adoption of Smoke Alarm Standards into Building Codes 

Smoke alarm standards have been incorporated into national model codes, which have in turn 

have been widely (although not uniformly) adopted by state and municipal building departments 

since the 1970s. State and local governments voluntarily adopt (and revise) model codes through 

legislative or regulatory actions. State agencies tasked with administering statewide codes 

typically release a public notice of intent to consider and adopt new codes. In most cases, the 

public can review proposed codes and formally submit proposals to modify them. Several states 

allow local authorities to adopt model codes in the absence of a statewide code, a policy often 

referred to as “home rule.” Historically, some states, such as New York and Wisconsin, developed 

their own codes. Adoption procedures, including amendments, and timelines to review and/or 

update codes are set by individual states. 

The earliest national model code in the United States was the Uniform Building Code, 

developed in 1927 by the International Council of Building Officials (ICBO) and used primarily 

in the western states. Until 1994, three organizations developed different building codes for use 

in different parts of the country.19 In 1994, the three organizations formed the ICC as a nonprofit

 

19 The Standard Building Code—originally the Southern Standard Building Code—was first published in 1945 by 

the Southern Building Code Congress International and used mainly in the southern states. The Building Officials 

Conference of America, later known as the Building Officials and Code Administrators International, published 

the first edition of the Basic/National Building Code in 1950, which was used in the northeast, mid-Atlantic, and 

midwestern states. Reflecting fundamental geographical differences, the Uniform Building Code emphasized 

structural provisions for proper seismic design (for a region prone to earthquakes), the Standard Building Code 

emphasized wind-resistant design (for a region prone to hurricanes), and the National Building Code addressed 

design snow loads on building roofs (for a region prone to harsher winters). 
30 

organization to develop a single set of comprehensive and uniform standards to be applied 

throughout the United States. The International Building Code was the first code published by 

the ICC in 2000. 

Several of the model codes developed by ICC—in particular the International Residential 

Code—cite fire safety standards developed by SDOs, such as NFPA 72 and UL 217. Thus, state 

and local governments that adopt these model codes also adopt the relevant smoke alarm standards. 

As described in Chapter 3, NIST research has played a substantial role in the development of these 

smoke alarm standards and is directly referenced in NFPA’s National Fire Alarm and Signaling 

Code (NFPA 72). NFPA standards are revised and updated every three to five years; NFPA 72 was 

last revised in 2019.20 However, states typically revise and update their building and fire codes on a 

three-year cycle (in some cases six years). Not all states have adopted codes referencing the most 

recent edition of NFPA 72, and some states have not adopted any state-wide code. Local codes 

may impose stricter requirements in addition to any state-wide codes, but local codes cannot grant 

exceptions to state-wide codes. 

Figure 4.2 shows the edition of NFPA 72 reflected in statewide residential codes as a 

function of time. Since 2003, most states have adopted a statewide minimum building and/or 

residential code. Fourteen states currently have no statewide minimum building or residential 

code. Nine states have adopted the 2018 International Residential Code, which in turn references 

the 2016 edition of NFPA 72.21 In the next section, we take advantage of variation in the edition 

of NFPA 72 that states have in force to examine the relationship between the edition of a smoke 

alarm standard in force and the fire outcomes experienced. If a more recent edition of NFPA 72 

is more protective, states with codes that incorporate more recent editions are expected to have 

more favorable fire outcomes. 

The Impact of Smoke Alarm Standards on Fire Outcomes, 2003–2017

Our analysis seeks to answer the following question: Are more current smoke alarm 

standards in statewide minimum building and residential codes associated with improved fire 

outcomes? To answer this question, we examine the relationship between the smoke alarm 

 

Efforts to develop a single national model code began well before 1994. In 1972, the Council of American 

Building Officials was created by the three model code organizations to provide the means to address common 

concerns and identify conflicts between the model codes. One of the early joint code writing efforts was a residential 

code, the Council of American Building Officials One and Two-Family Dwelling Code, which was adopted by 

reference into the three model building codes. The last Uniform Building Code was published in 1997 and the last 

Standard Building and National Building Codes were published in 1999. 

20 The first modern edition of NFPA 72, published in 1993, consolidated several earlier standards, including NFPA 71 

(1989 ed.), NFPA 72 (1990 ed.), and NFPA 74 (1989 ed.). 

21 The full name of the code is the “International Residential Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings.” This code 

applies to detached one and two-family homes and townhouses, and some small owner-occupied bed and breakfast–

style hotels with less than five guests. Other categories of housing would fall under the International Building Code. 
31 

Figure 4.2. Statewide Adoption of Codes Incorporating National Fire Protection 

Association 72 by State, Edition, and Year 

SOURCE: RAND analysis of state agency records on the adoption of statewide building and residential 

codes for 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

NOTES: The state agencies responsible for building and residential codes were identified using NFPA (undated a). 

The current edition of the building or residential code for each state was identified using ICC (undated c). 

standards adopted in state building and/or residential codes and fire outcomes. As noted in 

Table 3.4, the recent changes to the smoke alarm standards that we examined included several 

changes related to reduction of nuisance alarms near kitchens and the inclusion of smoke alarms 

in bedrooms. More recent editions generally require more smoke alarms in higher-risk locations, 

interconnection among separate smoke alarms, more resistance to nuisance alarms, and testing 

and sensitivity related to modern synthetic furnishing materials, so one might expect homes that 

are required to meet more recent standards to have improved fire safety outcomes. 
32 

As shown in Figure 4.2, states that have adopted the same edition of NFPA 72 have done so at 

different points in time, while other states have never adopted those standards into their statewide 

building codes. Further, because building codes are rarely retroactive, the proportion of a state’s 

housing stock built after the code was adopted serves as a reasonable proxy for the proportion of 

houses that were required to meet that building code.22 Consequently, we investigate whether 

states with a higher proportion of their housing stock built subsequent to the adoption of a specific 

edition of NFPA 72 have fewer severe house fires than states with little or no housing stock 

required to meet those standards.23 We emphasize that our analysis does not directly compare fire 

safety outcomes between homes with and without smoke alarms. Rather, our analysis compares 

fire safety outcomes between states where more or fewer homes are likely to be subject to recent 

fire safety standards. 

Data Sources and Statistical Methods 

We rely on residential fire outcome data from NFIRS to calculate per capita fire frequency 

for fires of different severities. The information that fire departments report to NFIRS includes 

the location of the fire, the extent to which each fire spread within and between areas, and 

whether any injuries or fatalities occurred. We use this information, along with intercensal 

estimates of the number of housing units by state from the U.S. Census Bureau, to estimate 

number of residential fires of different severities among homes built since enactment of specific 

editions of NFPA 72. We also estimate the number of injuries and fatalities that occurred in 

relation to the proportion of homes built since specific editions of NFPA 72 were enacted.24

To calculate the relationship between fire safety outcomes and whether or not homes are 

subject to recent fire safety standards, we apply a two-step regression process. The first step 

calculates propensity scores that reflect the probability of a fire department reporting to NFIRS, 

in order to account for NFIRS data consisting of voluntary reports rather than a random sample 

of reports. The second step uses a Poisson regression to examines the correlation between the 

number of fires per capita and the proportion of a state’s housing stock that is built following the 

adoption of a code that incorporates a particular edition of NFPA 72. Appendix B contains a 

detailed discussion of the econometric methodology. 

 

22 Homeowners could of course choose to retroactively update or build to more stringent conditions than the code in 

place at the time of building. If all houses were already built to more stringent conditions than the new code, such 

that the new code did not affect housing construction, we would expect to find no impact of the code adoption. As 

our later survey results indicate, many houses in the United States do not follow the latest smoke alarm standards. 

23 We are unable to do a within-state analysis for two reasons. First, individual localities sometimes have additional 

code requirements beyond the state level, and there is no database documenting how these local codes change over 

time. This alone does not preclude a local-level analysis, but we would be missing a potentially important source of 

local-level variation. Second, our data on the number of homes built in any given year are recorded at the state level, 

meaning we cannot calculate the fraction of local homes built since the enactment of a new state code. 

24 While a similar analysis could be done for UL 217, that standard had not changed substantially during our period 

of analysis. The 2020 update does incorporate significant changes, but because it is so recent data are not yet 

available on subsequent fire safety outcomes. 
33 

Results 

The values in Table 4.3 can be interpreted as the estimated percentage change in the number 

of fires of a given severity following a 1-percent increase in the proportion of homes built since 

that edition of NFPA 72 was enacted into the building code. For example, the results suggest a 

1-percent increase in a state’s housing stock built after enacting the 1999 edition of NFPA 72 

code is associated with a 0.4-percent increase in the number of fires that spread beyond the 

building of origin. Similarly, the results suggest a 1-percent increase in a state’s housing stock 

built after enacting the 2010 edition of NFPA 72 code is associated with a 0.2-percent decrease in 

the number of fires that spread beyond the building of origin. Each cell is a separate stand-alone 

estimate from a separate regression; the cells are not intended to be summed across rows or 

columns. None of the estimates in Table 4.3 are statistically different from zero.25

Table 4.3. Estimated Percentage Change in the Number of Fires Following a 1-Percent Increase 

in Homes Built Since the Listed Code Was Enacted, 2003–2017 

Fire Severity (Fire Spread) 1999 Edition 2002 Edition 2007 Edition 2010 Edition

Beyond building of origin 0.4% 0.4% 0.1% –0.2% 

Confined to building of origin 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 0.7% 

Confined to floor of origin 1.1% 1.2% 1.0% 0.6% 

Confined to room of origin 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.4% 

Confined to object of origin 2.4% 2.5% 2.2% 2.3% 

NOTE: None of the results are statistically significant at a 95-percent confidence level when using heteroskedasticity 

robust standard errors (which are necessary due to heteroskedasticity in this data). 

Although our hypothesis was to expect slight decreases in the number of fires per 100,000 

homes as a larger proportion of houses are built under the new code regime, the results initially 

appear to suggest the opposite—that the number of fires of all severities generally increased as 

the proportion of houses built under new code regimes increased. The increase in low-severity 

fires (i.e., fires confined to the object of origin) is surprisingly large. An increase in the number 

of low-severity fires would not be surprising if there was a corresponding decrease in highseverity fires, as that would suggest fires were being reported and extinguished more quickly. 

However, none of the estimates are statistically different from zero at standard 95-percent 

confidence levels. Thus we conclude that these standards do not result in measurable changes in 

the number of fires of any size. Because our data are from 2003–2017, we believe these results 

 

25 Our initial approach looked at the percentage change in the number of fires per housing unit over time, which also 

found no significant results. While the results presented in Table 4.3 make more precise use of available identifying 

variation, the results from examining the change in the number of fires per housing unit over time similarly show no 

statistically significant impact of more houses being built under the new code regime. 
34 

suggest the largest reductions in the number of fires occurred earlier, when smoke alarms were 

first being adopted. Smoke alarms had already become prevalent by the 1990s. 

Table 4.4 presents similar results on the percentage change in firefighter injuries per 100,000 

homes due to a 1-percent increase in the number of homes built since the code update. Similarly, 

we find positive but statistically insignificant increases rather than decreases. The change in 

firefighter fatalities is particularly large, although the baseline count of firefighter fatalities is 

relatively small, and the estimates are not statistically different from zero. We conclude that there 

is no measurable relation between the proportion of homes built since recent standards were 

adopted and the rate of injuries or fatalities caused by residential fires. Again, given the large 

literature on the safety benefits of smoke alarms, we suspect that these results reflect the largest 

benefits having occurred earlier in time. 

Table 4.4. Estimated Percentage Change in the Number of Reported Injuries or Fatalities Following 

a 1-Percent Increase in Homes Built Since the Listed Code Was Enacted, 2003–2017 

1999 Edition 2002 Edition 2007 Edition 2010 Edition

Firefighter injuries per 100,000 homes 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 

Firefighter fatalities per 100,000 homes 4.5% 6.4% 5.0% 11.6% 

Other injuries per 100,000 homes 0.8% 0.9% 1.0% 0.4% 

Other fatalities per 100,000 homes 1.3% 1.4% 1.1% 0.9% 

NOTE: None of the results are statistically significant at a 95-percent confidence level when using heteroskedasticity 

robust standard errors (which are necessary due to heteroskedasticity in this data). 

Overall, we find no evidence that an increase in the proportion of houses subject to statewide 

minimum residential building code updates correlates with statistically significant reductions 

(or increases) in the number of fires, injuries, or fatalities reported to NFIRS. We speculate that 

these results may reflect the largest gains having occurred prior to the beginning of our data in 

2003. Another possible reason that we do not find a statistically significant relationship between 

state codes and fire safety outcomes could be that local building codes may commonly be more 

stringent than state codes. If that is the case, changes in state codes would rarely alter housing 

construction practices, thus explaining the lack of correlation. We have not conducted a thorough 

analysis of how commonly local codes are more stringent that state codes, so we do not know if 

this is the case. 

Other Analysis of Potential Benefits of Smoke Alarm Standards 

Although the results of our two-step analysis suggest that statewide minimum residential 

building code updates since 2003 have not measurably reduced fires or improved safety 

outcomes, standards have and may continue to improve well-being in other ways. To gain 

an understanding of how smoke alarm usage corresponds to the evolution of standards 

requirements, we included four questions in the early 2020 fielding of RAND’s American 
35 

Life Panel (ALP) nationally representative survey. The four yes/no questions included in 

the survey were 

1. Does your primary residence have at least one functioning smoke alarm? 

2. [If answered “Yes” to question 1:] Does your primary residence have a functioning 

smoke alarm on every floor (including the basement, but not including the attic or 

garage)? 

3. [If answered “Yes” to question 1:] Does your primary residence have a functioning 

smoke alarm in every bedroom? 

4. Have you ever disabled a smoke alarm in your primary residence (e.g., removed the 

batteries) to prevent nuisance alarms? 

The results, weighted for national representativeness, are as shown in Figure 4.3. 

Figure 4.3. Smoke Alarm Usage in 2020 

Yes No 

Does your primary residence have at least 

one functioning smoke alarm? 

95%

(91.7%, 96.9%) 

5%

(3.1%, 8.3%) 

Among those who have smoke alarms: 

Does your primary residence have a 

functioning smoke alarm on every floor 

(including the basement, but not including 

the attic or garage)? 

90%

(88.4%, 91.9%) 

10%

(8.1%, 11.6%) 

Among those who have smoke alarms: 

Does your primary residence have a 

functioning smoke alarm in every bedroom? 

54%

(50.6%, 57.4%) 

46%

(42.6%, 49.4%) 

Have you ever disabled a smoke alarm in 

your primary residence (e.g., removed the 

batteries) to prevent nuisance alarms? 

36%

(32.9%, 39.7%) 

64%

(60.3%, 67.1%) 

NOTE: Ninety-five-percent confidence intervals are in parenthesis. The response rates 

were 2,487 out of 2,488 for Q1, 2,385 out of 2,389 for Q2 (only asked if the respondent 

answered “Yes” to Q1), 2,386 out of 2,389 for Q3 (only asked if the respondent 

answered “Yes” to Q1), and 2,484 out of 2,488 for Q4. 

As we speculated previously, one reason we find no evidence of benefits from updated 

building codes may be because earlier adoption of now-widespread practices—such as having 

a smoke alarm at all—may have already imparted the largest safety benefits. Indeed, results 

of surveys conducted since the 1970s demonstrate that smoke detectors had rapidly become 
36 

pervasive prior to 2003, which is the starting date for data used in our analysis. In fact, the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 

the prevalence of smoke detectors in the United States has been steadily increasing since the early 

1970s, when only about 5% of households had them. By 1985, an estimated 75% of households 

had at least one smoke detector. Similarly, during 1978–1984, deaths from house fires dropped 

more than 30%, from 6,015 to 4,075. This decline is attributed in part to recent home fire safety 

efforts, including the passage of numerous state laws requiring the installation of smoke 

detectors. (CDC, 1986)26

A 1985 survey conducted by the CDC found that 76.3 percent of households in DeKalb 

Country, Georgia, owned smoke detectors at the time. The survey is consistent with standards 

and building codes encouraging smoke detector installation, as dwellings under ten years old 

were more likely to have smoke detectors than dwellings ten years old or older (89.9 percent 

versus 71.8 percent) (CDC, 1986). 

A later survey conducted by the CDC in 2001–2003 found that 95 percent of U.S. households 

reported having at least one smoke alarm installed in their home (Ballesteros and Krewsnow, 

2007). If most safety gains come from having at least one smoke alarm installed in the home, 

this suggests that by 2003 there were few further gains to be made on this front. 

Indeed, our ALP survey found that 95 percent of respondents reported having at least one 

functioning smoke alarm in their primary residence. Given the similarity of this result to that of 

the 2003 survey, it is less surprising that we find little evidence of additional safety gains since 

2003. However, we note that while 90 percent of respondents with smoke alarms (85 percent of 

all respondents) reported having one smoke alarm on every floor, only 54 percent of respondents 

with smoke alarms (51 percent of all respondents) reported following the most recent standard of 

one smoke alarm in every bedroom. As the country’s housing stock continues to update over 

time, we expect this rate to increase due to current standard requirements. 

Standards and Nuisance Alarms 

Although smoke alarms are now widespread, “nuisance alarms”—smoke alarms being 

triggered undesirably by events such as by certain cooking activities—are also common. A 

homeowner might disable a smoke alarm to prevent these nuisance alarms, such as by removing 

the smoke alarm batteries. Our ALP survey found that more than one-third of households have 

disabled a smoke alarm to prevent nuisance alarms—a finding that provides compelling evidence 

that this issue is a concern. Although disabling the smoke alarm stops nuisance alarms, the smoke 

alarm is no longer providing safety benefits to the homeowner. NFPA studies have found that 

17 percent of civilian fire deaths occurred in homes with nonoperational smoke alarms, and that 

nuisance alarms were the leading cause for disabling smoke alarms (Ahrens, 2004; 2019). 

 

26 See Ahrens (2021) for useful illustrations of trends over time. 
37 

As discussed in Chapter 2, NFPA 72 gradually introduced measures to reduce the likelihood 

of nuisance alarms as the magnitude of this issue became apparent. These measures included 

limiting how close smoke alarms can be placed to cooking appliances and bathrooms, requiring 

hush buttons, and prescribing the allowable type of detector technology. These changes—driven 

by recent NIST research (Cleary and Chernovsky, 2013; Cleary, 2014)—were intended to help 

reduce nuisance alarms. Any benefits associated with the most recent changes cannot be observed 

yet, including the impacts of changes to UL 217 that did not come into effect until May 2020 and 

changes to NFPA 72 that do not come into effect until 2022. When these changes do come into 

effect, health and safety benefits may accrue if residents disable smoke alarms less frequently. 

In addition, the reduction in nuisance alarms in and of itself would provide a public benefit—

individuals may value having fewer sudden scrambles to silence the smoke alarm’s ill-timed 

critique of their cooking skills, a task that is not simplified by the hush button being located on 

the ceiling. The convenience value of reduced nuisance alarms may be best seen through 

eventual sales data—if consumers value fewer nuisance alarms, they may be more eager to buy 

new replacement smoke alarms once models compliant with the new standards are available. 

Conclusion 

Prior studies have demonstrated the great effectiveness of smoke alarms in reducing the 

incidence of fire fatalities. Our analysis presents the first examination of the benefits of smoke 

alarm standards. Because smoke alarm standards are adopted into state residential building 

codes, we conducted a quantitative analysis to assess the relationship between the proportion 

of homes built since a code was adopted and several fire safety outcomes. Using data from 

2003–2017, we find no evidence that increases in the proportion of houses subject to statewide 

minimum residential building code updates is correlated with statistically significant reductions 

(or increases) in the number of reported fires, injuries, or fatalities. We speculate that these 

results may reflect the largest gains having occurred prior to 2003 and the beginning of our 

data. Survey data support this view, as by 2003 a full 95 percent of household had already 

installed at least one smoke detector. Our 2020 survey reached the same results. Together, the 

literature and these results suggest that smoke alarms—and the research and standards that 

encouraged their adoption—have had significant effects on health and safety, but that the 

largest of those impacts occurred prior to 2003. We are unable to identify any statistically 

significant health and safety impacts imparted through the enactment of updated residential 

building codes since 2003. 

These results do not necessarily mean that further updates to smoke alarm standards or 

building codes are irrelevant. Ongoing work on smoke alarm standards, supported by NIST 

research, is now rightly focused on other issues, such as the prevalence of nuisance alarms. 

Our ALP survey found that more than one out of three households report having disabled a 

smoke alarm to prevent nuisance alarms. Meaningful improvements in fire safety and general 

well-being could result if standards—based in part on NIST research—can reduce the 

frequency with which households disable smoke alarms. 
38 

5. Wildland-Urban Interface Standards 

Our third case study on the impacts of fire safety standards focuses on standards associated 

with WUI. Wildland fires are receiving increasing attention from the research community. 

Whereas many urban fire-related risks have been reduced through research-informed changes to 

building codes and standards, the risk of WUI fires appears to be growing. Rasker (2018) notes 

that “wildfires are bigger, burn longer, cause more damage, and kill more people than before.” 

The increase in WUI risks is driven by both increased wildland fire risk, increased human-caused 

ignition, and increased building exposure. The result is an increase in fire losses and suppression 

costs (Rasker, 2018). 

To contextualize and organize this discussion, we again use a logic model that charts the path 

from NIST activities to fire outcomes (Figure 5.1), highlighting the steps that we focus on in this 

chapter. In this chapter we examine NIST’s role in the development of new WUI standards and 

codes that are intended to increase building survivability during wildland fires. 

Figure 5.1. Logic Model of National Institute of Standards and Technology Activities and 

Wildland-Urban Interface Standards and Codes 

Case Study 3: The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Role 

in Wilderness Urban Interface Building Standards and Codes 

NIST work on WUI fire research began as an extension of its general fire efforts through the 

National Fire Research Laboratory. NIST WUI work appears to be motivated in part by large 

wildland fires that occurred in the 1990s and early 2000s, such as the 1991 Oakland Hills Fire, the 

2000 Los Alamos Fire, and the 2002 Hayman Fire (e.g., see Manzello, Cleary, and Yang, 2004). 

Table 5.1 provides a timeline of relevant NIST program and project efforts on WUI fire research. 

According to NIST personnel, early NIST WUI fire research focused on developing a better 

understanding of how fire spreads from the vegetative fuels of the wildland to structures. 

Initially, this research examined how fire was spread by flame contact and thermal radiation. 

However, a growing body of research has shown that firebrands—small flaming or glowing 

embers that may be transported by the wind into buildings’ cracks or crevices—are another 

important mechanism of structure ignition in wildfires (e.g., Barrow, 1945; Ramsay, McArthur, 
39 

Table 5.1. Timeline of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Key Contributions to 

the Development of Wilderness Urban Interface Standards 

Event Date NIST Role Impact 

Development of test 

methodologies and 

devices to understand 

ignition from firebrands 

during WUI fires 

2004–present NIST is developing test 

methodologies and devices, 

including the “Dragon” 

firebrand generator and an 

“emberometer” that 

quantifies firebrand exposure 

 The ability to generate and measure 

standardized firebrands, enabling 

structured laboratory testing of 

ember behavior and impacts 

 Improved understanding of the role 

of firebrands in ignition and the 

spread of WUI fires 

Detailed studies of four 

WUI fires (including the 

2018 Camp Fire) 

2007–present NIST is collecting the data 

needed to better model fire 

impacts and WUI fire 

impacts 

 Informs WUI mitigation efforts and 

building standards 

Fire Risk Reduction in 

Communities Program 

2011–present NIST is combining lab- and 

field-scale experiments 

with computer fire models 

to characterize WUI 

fire exposure 

 Supports the development of sciencebased standards, codes, and 

practices for fire resistant communities 

and Dowling, 1987; Leonard and McArthur, 1999). By 2004, NIST researchers began researching 

how firebrands can cause structure ignition in WUI fires (Manzello, Clearly, and Yang, 2004). 

Subsequent full-scale experiments and reconstructions of actual fire incidents by NIST and others 

demonstrated that a majority of structure ignitions were caused by firebrands rather than flame 

contact and thermal radiation (Manzello et al., 2018, p. 64). Gaps in knowledge about firebrand 

ignition of structures, coupled with the observed risk, have led NIST to focus WUI fire research 

on understanding how firebrands ignite structures (Hamins et al., 2012, pp. 59, 91) and the 

development of test methods and apparatuses, such as the NIST “Dragon,” which generates 

standardized firebrands for use in tests. 

Another line of effort is collecting data on historic fires, typically in the immediate aftermath 

of the fire when data are best available. A NIST project called the “WUI Fire Exposure Data 

Collection and Modeling Project” began in 2011 to organize these efforts (NIST, 2018a) and has 

led to publications such as a case study of timelines, impacts, and identification of risk factors for 

building ignition during the Witch and Guejito Fires in the Trails subdivision near San Diego, 

California in 2007 (Maranghides et al., 2013), a study of the fire behavior and WUI measurement 

science of 2011 fires in Amarillo, Texas (Maranghides et al., 2011), and a case study of the 

impact of the Waldo Canyon Fire in the Mountain Shadows Community of Colorado Springs in 

2012 (Maranghides et al., 2015). NIST has been continuing this work through a study of the 

2018 Camp Fire near Paradise, California, and plans to release five reports focusing on topics 

such as the progression of the fire, the evacuation effort, defensive actions, and the survivability 

of structures (Maranghides et al., 2021a). This body of work has led to important new research in 

collaboration with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), IBHS, 

and the California Building Industry Association on structure-to-structure fire spreading 

(Maranghides et al., 2021b). 
40 

NIST has conducted a variety of other complementary research on the socio-technical aspects 

of WUI risk. For example, NIST has developed a fire and ember exposure scale (Maranghides 

and Mell, 2013) that could eventually evolve to be incorporated into building codes so that code 

requirements can be based on WUI fire risk (Maranghides and Mell, 2013). NIST has also 

conducted research on the economics of WUI fires, such as an exploration of WUI fire trends 

and economic impacts using NFIRS (Thomas and Butry, 2012). 

NIST has been leading several efforts that seek to increase outreach about WUI fire and 

coordinate efforts across the research community. NIST established the Fire Risk Reduction in 

Communities Program, which aims to conduct research to “improve the resilience of wildlandurban interface communities,” make improvements to firefighting, and fund related research 

through grants (NIST, July 2021). Further, NIST has sponsored or co-sponsored at least four 

workshops on WUI fires.27 NIST personnel also collaborate with non-NIST researchers on 

WUI research.28

NIST’s work is providing key fundamental groundwork needed to develop evidence-based 

WUI standards. For example, IBHS has adopted WUI-related infratechnologies developed 

by NIST to conduct research on how effectively different building designs and materials 

deter firebrand-driven ignition. Most notably, the ten firebrand generators used during IBHS 

experiments are based on the design of the NIST Dragon, with modifications to automate fuel 

delivery (Standohar-Alfano et al., 2017, p. 14). To motivate the need for the research, IBHS 

cites surveys conducted by NIST after the Witch Fire, which showed that firebrands were a 

frequent source of ignition, as well as other NIST research outlining firebrand research needs 

(Standohar-Alfano et al., 2017, p. 3). IBHS also compared the firebrands created in their 

facility with those documented by NIST testing (Standohar-Alfano et al., 2017, p. 16). 

Table 5.2 provides a timeline of the most relevant WUI-related standards and codes for 

building design. This timeline is based on the codes produced by WUI-related committees as 

well as the NIST Strategic Roadmap (Hamins et al., 2012). Codes and standards for WUI 

firefighting also exist, but they are outside this study’s focus on standards for risk prevention 

and mitigation of WUI fires. It is important to note that the line between WUI-related fire 

standards and codes and non–WUI fire standards and codes is not always clear—many codes 

designed for general fires will also be applicable to WUI fires. Therefore, our scope was guided 

by the codes and standards under the jurisdiction of the WUI-related committees. 

 

27 The workshops were Innovative Fire Protection (2009; WUI was one track of this workshop, which appears to 

have informed the NIST Fire Research Roadmap [Hamins et al., 2012]), Wildland Urban Interface Fire Research 

Needs (2012), Structure Ignition in Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fires (2016), and Large Outdoor Fires and the 

Built Environment (2017). 

28 For example, NIST researcher Nelson Bryner served on a project technical panel for a 2015 Fire Protection Research 

Foundation study called Pathways for Building Fire Spread at the Wildland Urban Interface (Gollner et al., 2015). 
41 

Table 5.2. Timeline of Key Wilderness Urban Interface Codes 

Time Activity 

1956–1998 Publication of Community Forest Fighting Equipment (NFPA-295) (NFPA, 2017b; undated b) 

The standard was targeted to fire departments that control wildfires and included requirements 

for fighting wildland fires as well as an increasing emphasis on preventing fires over the years. 

It was renamed Community Equipment and Organization for Fighting Forest, Grass, and Brush 

Fires in 1956, Recommendations for Forest, Grass, and Brush Fire Control in 1965, Standard for 

Wildfire Control by Volunteer Fire Departments in 1973, and Standard for Wildfire Control in 

1985. This standard was incorporated into NFPA 1143 in 2003. 

1935–1985 Publication of Fire Protection and Prevention for Summer Homes in Forested Areas (NFPA-224) 

(NFPA, 2017c) 

This standard focused on requirements for structures and other development (e.g., camps) in 

forests. In 1953 it was renamed Fire Prevention Standards for Homes and Camps in Forested 

Areas, in 1962 it was renamed Recommended Good Practice for Homes and Camps in Forest 

Areas, and in 1972 it was renamed Standard for Homes and Camps in Forest Areas. It was 

incorporated into NFPA 299 in 1991, which was incorporated into NFPA 1144 in 2002.

1985–2018 Publication of Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Development in Wildland, Rural, 

and Suburban Areas (NFPA-1141) (NFPA, 2017a)

This standard focuses on issues beyond structures. It includes geographic issues and fire 

protection for WUI (e.g., roads, building separation, water supply, fire protection, emergency 

preparedness). Work on the standard began in 1972 but ran into obstacles so a draft 1977 

version was never issued. Over the years, requirements have shifted between this standard 

and NFPA-1144. NFPA plans to incorporate this standard into NFPA-1140 in the future. 

1991, 1997 Publication of Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire (NFPA-299) (NFPA, 1997) 

This standard focuses on building and land use standards for properties that might be 

threatened by wildfire. It incorporated requirements formerly in NFPA-224. NFPA-299 was 

withdrawn in 2002 and integrated into NFPA-1144.

1996, 2000 Publication of the International Fire Code Institute (IFCI),a Urban-Wildland Interface Code (Natural 

Hazards Center, 1996; ICC, 2014, p. iii) 

The Urban-Wildland Interface Code Committee was convened in 1994. It released its initial code 

in 1996 and updated it in 2000. ICC obtained full rights to the code through ICBO, and the 2000 

version of the code forms the basis of the ICC code released in 2004 (see below). 

2002–2018 Publication of Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire (NFPA-1144) 

(NFPA 2018b) 

This standard focuses on requirements for new structures in WUI areas and assessments of 

WUI hazards. In 2002, NFPA-299 was renumbered NFPA-1144. NFPA plans to incorporate this 

standard into NFPA-1140 in the future.

2003–2018 Publication of Standard for Wildland Fire Management (NFPA-1143) (NFPA, 2018a) 

The standard focuses on both wildland fire suppression and wildland fire management 

(e.g., prevention or remediation of fire risk.) In 2003, NFPA-295 was renumbered NFPA-1143. 

NFPA plans to incorporate this standard into NFPA-1140 in the future. 

2003–present Publication of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code (IWUIC) by ICC 

The effort began by the ICC in 2001 with three of its members: Building Officials and Code 

Administrators International, Inc., ICBO, and Southern Building Code Congress International. 

The goal was to “bridge the gap between enforcement of the International Building Code and 

International Fire Code by mitigating the hazard of wildfires through model code regulations, 

which safeguard the public health and safety in all communities, large and small” 

(ICC, 2014, p. iii). 

IWUIC is a model code providing requirements for land use and the built environment in WUI 

areas. The code has been enforced or adapted by jurisdictions in 18 mainly western U.S. states. 

(ICC, 2019) The code has been updated every three years (2003–2018). It has utilized technical 

content from 2000 Urban-Wildland Interface Code (IFCI, 2000).

 
42 

Time Activity 

2005–present California Building Code Chapter 7A, “Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire 

Exposure” (State Fire Marshal, 2007)b

The California Building Standards Commission adopted Chapter 7A in September 2005. It 

“establishes minimum standards for the protection of life and property by increasing the ability of 

a building to resist flames and burning embers generated by wildfires” (Quarles and Kearns, 

2007, p. 2). It amended the 2001 California Building Code and applied to any new buildings 

permitted within a very-high Fire Hazard Severity Zone in Local Responsibility Areas as well as 

buildings in all Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas (i.e., unincorporated 

areas not managed by the federal government). It also applies to remodels of older homes in 

some local jurisdictions. Requirements for roofing and attic ventilation applied to all homes 

permitted on or after December 1, 2005, while all the requirements applied to any building 

permitted on or after July 1, 2008 (2016 version, 701A.3.1). Chapter 7A was released as an 

emergency supplement to the building code on June 21, 2006. The California Building Code 

has been updated every three years, recently between 2007 and 2016. 

In addition, the California Fire Code has a short chapter, Chapter 49, “Requirements for 

Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas”, with requirements for WUI areas. It references California 

Building Code Chapter 7A and also includes requirements for fire hazard severity zone mapping 

and vegetation and fuel management (California Building Standards Commission, 2016). The 

California Fire Code is based largely on the ICC’s International Fire Code. 

Future Publication of Standards for Wildland Fire Safety (NFPA-1140) (NFPA, undated c) 

NFPA plans to consolidate all future revisions of wildland fire codes (NFPA-1141, NFPA-1143, 

and NFPA-1143, discussed above, as well as NFPA-1051, Standard for Wildland Firefighting 

Personnel Professional Qualifications) into a single edition.

NOTES: 

a IFCI was set up in 1991 by the Western Fire Chiefs Association, ICBO, and the International Association of Fire 

Chiefs. ICBO served as one of the founders of ICC in 1994. The 1990s was a turbulent decade for SDOs, especially 

for fire codes. In 1997, ICC and NFPA agreed to collaborate on fire codes, but by 1999 the agreement had ended in 

lawsuits between the two organizations and realignments of them. In the aftermath ICBO acquired full rights to IFCI 

codes, and IFCI apparently ceased to exist (Reckner, 1999; Schepel, 2005, p. 155).

b The NIST Roadmap (Hamins et al., 2012, p. 103) refers to “Chapter 86B” of the “California State Fire Code,” called 

“Material and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure.” The fire code does not have an 86B, so it 

appears that NIST is referring to the building code. 

In addition to SDO standards and model building codes, NIST personnel have recently 

worked or are working on two other efforts to expand the reach of WUI standards and codes. 

NIST personnel, including Alexander Maraghides, Erica Kuligowski, and Nelson Bryner 

provided technical support for the development and implementation of Executive Order (EO) 

13,728, Wildland-Urban Interface Federal Risk Mitigation (Obama, 2016). The EO requires 

newly constructed or altered buildings over 5,000 gross square feet within a WUI that are 

owned by federal agencies to adhere to the IWUIC or equivalent code. In addition, agencies 

must conduct a wildfire risk assessment of their existing buildings over 5,000 gross square feet 

within a WUI and are encouraged to bring such buildings into compliance with codes. 

Development of the EO occurred in the National Security Council–organized Sub-Interagency 

Policy Committee on Increasing the Resiliency of Communities and Federal Assets in the 

Wildland-Urban Interface. NIST researchers made presentations at committee meetings on the 

current state-of-the-art building and fire codes as applied to WUI, led the technical discussions, 

and assisted in drafting proposed language for the EO. 

After this EO was issued, NIST staff continued to serve on the subsequent implementation 

plan through the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group. This group developed implementation 
43 

guidelines to advise and assist agency compliance with the code requirements and provided 

assistance to the agencies in interpreting the implementing guidelines (Mitigation Framework 

Leadership Group, 2017). 

NIST researchers have been leading a second effort with the ISO. In October 2018, Samuel 

Manzello presented at ISO meetings and helped to host workshops, including a workshop at the 

ISO Technical Committee (TC) 92 plenary meetings in Delft, Netherlands (Manzello, 2019a). 

As a result of these activities, ISO/TC 92/TG3 proposed and approved the formation of a new 

working group, ISO TC92/WG 14, “Large Outdoor Fires and the Built Environment,” with 

Manzello as the convener. 

Participation in Standards Development Organizations 

NIST research and the participation of NIST researchers on WUI-oriented SDO committees 

has influenced those SDO’s efforts since at least the late 1990s. Past NIST work specifically 

focused on WUI codes and standards by leveraging NIST researcher participation on SDO 

committees and sharing NIST research results in forums such as NIST-led workshops. 

According to NIST and our review of SDO documentation, NIST WUI researchers are 

members and active participants of several WUI-related SDO committees.29 Table 5.3 

summarizes NIST involvement in these committees. 

An important step in developing WUI standards is the development of standardized test 

methods, which serve two important purposes. First, they provide a systematic and objective way 

to assess and compare the performance of materials and processes. This is important for the WUI 

setting, where the extent of structure damage depends on many interdependent variables. The 

second important purpose of standardized tests is to certify that products comply with standards. 

NIST has played an important role in the development of several standardized test methods, 

including ASTM E2886, “Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Ability of Exterior Vents to 

Resist the Entry of Embers and Direct Flame Impingement” (ASTM, undated e). California’s 

Chapter 7A initially “recommended that a metal mesh of 6 mm be placed behind building vents 

to prevent firebrand entry into structures,” although “the mesh size was not based on any 

scientific testing since no test methods were available at that time” (Manzello, 2014). Subsequent 

research by NIST utilizing standardized test methods showed that this mesh size would be 

ineffective, and NIST researchers worked with CAL FIRE to revise the code to be more effective 

at reducing firebrand entry into structures (Manzello, 2014). 

Similarly, ASTM WK23700, “New Test Method for Evaluating Roof Field Vent Response to 

Wind Blown Flame and Burning Ember Exposure” (ASTM, undated f) uses an ember generator 

based on NIST’s Dragon design for evaluating the performance of ridge and off-ridge throughroof vents. 

 

29 NIST, 2017b. 
44 

Table 5.3. The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Involvement in Wilderness Urban 

Interface Standards Development Organization (and Related) Committees 

Organization Standard(s) Committee Role(s) Category Time Period 

NFPA Various Wildland Fire Technical 

Committeesa

 Principal and 

alternate 

 R/T (Applied 

Research/Testing 

Laboratory) 

 1997–present 

CAL FIRE California Code of 

Regulations, Title 24, 

Part 2, Chapter 7A, 

“Materials and 

Construction Methods 

for Exterior Wildfire 

Exposure” 

 Wildfire Protection 

Building Construction 

Task Force 

 Member N/A 2010–

presentb

ICC International 

Wildland-Urban 

Interface Code 

(IWUIC) 

 Fire, Performance, 

Wildland-Urban Interface 

Code Interpretation 

Committee (FCIC)

c

 Member N/A 2015–2017d

ASTM Various standards Subcommittee E05.14 on 

Quantification of Exterior 

Fire Exposures 

 Member N/A As of 2019e

ISO N/A (technical report 

in development) 

 ISO Technical Committee 

92 Working Group 3 

(ISO/TC 92/WG 14) on 

Large Outdoor Fires and 

the Built Environment 

 Convener 

(leader) 

 N/A 2019–-present 

NOTES: 

a The names and scope of the NFPA committees have changed frequently throughout NFPA’s history; this table 

reflects the committee names as of 2021. Committee names, responsibilities, and membership are located on the 

NFPA website (NFPA, undated d). Alexander Maranghides is NIST’s representative to the Wildland and Rural Fire 

Protection Committee and the Wildland Fire Management Committee, and Nelson Bryner is the alternate. 

b Samuel Manzello participated in a CAL FIRE task force in 2010 (Manzello, 2014). According to correspondence with 

NIST in 2019, Manzello is on the Wildfire Protection Building Construction Task Force and Alexander Maranghides is 

the lead NIST representative on the most recent Chapter 7A TG. c FCIC is referenced on the ICC website but does not contain committee documentation or current or historical 

interpretations (ICC, undated a). 

d Nelson Bryner was a member of the 2016–2017 FCIC (ICC, 2016), but NIST was not represented on the committee 

as of 2018 (ICC, 2018). In addition, Bryner was a member of the ICC’s International Building Code Fire Safety Code 

Committee (ICCl, 2018). 

e As of 2019, Samuel Manzello on this committee. We were unable to find committee rosters to determine the history 

of NIST involvement. 

Conclusion 

The development of WUI standards is much more nascent than the development of smoke 

alarm standards. One reason for this may be that the ability to precisely measure and monitor 

the factors that cause WUI fires has only been recently developed, in large part due to research 

conducted by NIST. The improved understanding of how WUI fires spread and precisely how 

affected buildings become damaged is leading to new approaches and standards for protecting 

buildings from WUI fires. In the next chapter, we examine the WUI benefits associated with 

ongoing improvements to standards. 
45 

6. The Economic Impact of Wildland-Urban Interface 

Safety Standards 

This chapter examines the impacts of WUI standards and codes on societal well-being. As 

illustrated in Figure 6.1, these changes in building design can lead to increased survivability 

of buildings during wildland fires, thereby reducing economic damage caused by the fire and 

possibly saving lives. As in our analysis of smoke alarm standards, this high-level logic model 

guided our analysis of the economic impacts of safety standards focused on WUI. 

Figure 6.1. Logic Model of the National Institute of Stands and Technology’s Activities and 

Wildland-Urban Interface Standards and Codes 

Estimating the causal impact of standards and codes in reducing wildfire damages, injuries, 

and fatalities is difficult for several reasons. First, compliance with and enforcement of building 

codes may vary. Second, it is not always clear what proportion of new homes would already be 

compliant regardless of the code change.30 Third, changes in codes rarely require retroactive 

changes to existing structures, and the long lifetime of infrastructure means that it can take 

decades before new codes are universally implemented. For example, as discussed in Chapter 3, 

5 percent of homes still did not have smoke alarms in 2020. 

Standards and codes can also have economic impacts beyond the prevention of damages 

and injuries or fatalities. Vaughan and Turner (2013) assert that building codes can “accelerate 

innovation because they create markets for products at and above the current code.” For 

example, when language requiring that vents “resist the intrusion of flames and embers” was 

added to Chapter 7A of the California building code (State Fire Marshal, 2007, p. 258), such 

vents did not exist. This is admittedly a double-edged sword, as changes in codes could impose 

additional costs on the construction of new buildings. 

 

30 Further, changes to code do not always involve increased restrictions or additional mandates. Sometimes changes 

to code relax previous requirements. 
46 

In Chapter 5, we reviewed NIST activities that help establish the effectiveness of design 

changes in protecting homes during wildfires. Such research is still in its early stages, so the 

effects of potential design changes on survivability are highly uncertain. To inform the potential 

impacts of future changes to WUI standards and codes, this chapter examines the extent to which 

houses built during more recent code regimes are better able to survive wildfires. Specifically, 

we examine the association between the adoption of Chapter 7A of the California Building Code 

and survivability of homes during the 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise, California. Chapter 7A of the 

California Building Code mandates certain specific design features (e.g., adoption of smaller 

vent screen mesh) in homes located in particular areas, including Paradise, that are at high risk 

for wildfires.31 The Camp Fire, although only a single fire, is a useful case study because it has 

more data on building survivability than prior wildfire incidents. 

Our analysis provides strong evidence that newer homes were more likely to survive the 

Camp Fire than older homes. However, we were unable to find evidence that directly links 

survivability to California Building Code Chapter 7A. Studies of buildings affected by wildfires 

typically collect minimal information on undamaged buildings, making it impossible to compare 

the design of buildings that ignited with those that survived. Collection of such data could greatly 

improve the development of WUI standards identifying specific building designs that support 

housing survivability in wildfires. 

Previous Studies of Wildland-Urban Interface Building Survivability 

This study builds on two recent efforts to understand the survivability of buildings to 

WUI fires. 

Syphard and Keeley (2019) estimated the effects of different building design features 

(e.g., vent screen mesh, eave construction) for fires in California between 2013 and 2018. 

They used data collected as part of the CAL FIRE Damage Inspection (DINS) program, which 

inspects buildings damaged during wildland fires and collects data about damage extent, 

building features, cause of ignition (when possible), and defensive measures (see Henning, 

Cox, and Shew, 2016). 

Syphard and Keeley analyzed data for fires that resulted in destroyed structures across 36 

California counties. The dataset is dominated by the 2018 Camp Fire, which accounts for nearly 

half of the 41,717 damaged structures analyzed in the study. They compared the efficacy of 

different structural features and concluded that eave construction was most critical for explaining 

 

31 Chapter 7A applies to new construction of most building types in very high Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local 

Responsibility Areas and all Fire Hazard Severity Zones (also including moderate and high) in State Responsibility 

Areas that are outside of municipalities. Municipalities (i.e., “cities and other local agencies,” as described in 

Chapter 7A [State Fire Marshal, 2007]) have latitude as to which areas are designated Fire Hazard Severity Zones 

where Chapter 7A is enforced. 
47 

survivability (i.e., closed eaves are more survivable than open eaves). Multipane (rather than 

single-pane) windows were also important, while the importance of other factors such as exterior 

siding and vent screens varied across California regions. However, a major limitation of the CAL 

FIRE DINS data is that they survey only structures that were damaged or destroyed by the fires. 

Therefore, Syphard and Keeley’s analysis cannot account for structural features that may have 

led to a complete avoidance of visible fire damage. 

In an effort to assess the impacts of California Building Code Chapter 7A, reporters from the 

Sacramento Bee (Kasler and Reese, 2019) used CAL FIRE DINS data as well as data about 

undamaged structures from the Butte County Assessor’s Office. Kasler and Reese compared the 

survivability of single-family houses that were built before 2008, when the requirements from 

Chapter 7A took full effect, with those built during or after 2008. They found that 51 percent of 

the homes built during or after 2008 were undamaged versus only 18 percent of the homes built 

prior to 2008. 

The Kasler and Reese analysis is illuminating since it used a large number of observations 

from a complete population of structures. An important limitation of their analysis is that it does 

not account for factors potentially associated with home age other than Chapter 7A, which may 

account for the difference in survivability. In this chapter we expand upon the work done by 

Kasler and Reese to increase our understanding of the potential impacts of changes to WUI 

building codes on the survivability of houses in the Camp Fire.

Camp Fire Case Study 

Data Overview 

Our analysis used the same CAL FIRE DINS and Butte County Assessor’s Office data used 

by Kasler and Reese (2019).32 We restricted our analysis to single-family houses because these 

homes tend to be the primary focus of recent WUI standards and code activities, although 

other types of new construction, such as multifamily and commercial, are also subject to the 

requirements of Chapter 7A. Chapter 7A first came into force on December 1, 2005, for building 

components related to roofing and attic ventilation. The remainder of the code came into force 

on January 1, 2008, in State Responsibility Areas (outside of municipalities) and on July 1, 2008, 

for participating municipalities (i.e., areas designated as very high Fire Hazard Severity Zones in 

Local Responsibility Areas). Per CAL FIRE data, the fire perimeter area is nearly all subject to 

Chapter 7A, with exceptions for federal lands and pockets of high-hazard zones within Paradise 

 

32 The web mapping application is located at CAL FIRE (undated a). In addition, data feeds are publicly available 

from ArcGIS feature dataservers at ArcGIS REST Services Directory (undated a) (for undamaged structures) and 

ArcGIS REST Services Directory (undated c) (for damaged structures). We used the data assembled and graciously 

provided by Dale Kasler and Phillip Reese of the Sacramento Bee. 
48 

municipal boundaries.33 We included both manufactured homes and permanent homes in our

analysis. Manufactured homes, which are also known as prefabricated or mobile homes but 

exclude modular homes, often share similar design features with permanent homes and are 

interspersed with permanent homes in the Paradise area. Though state and local building codes 

typically do not apply to manufactured homes, which are regulated by the federal government,34

Chapter 7A applies to all manufactured homes built after September 1, 2008 that are installed in 

areas subject to Chapter 7A.35

In addition, we obtained a CAL FIRE map of the fire perimeter.36 During the course of a 

fire, fire perimeter maps are updated on at least a daily basis and are likely to contain significant 

errors, especially in remote areas where smoke and unburned canopies may obscure aerial views 

(see Kolden and Wiesberg, 2007, pp. 23–24, 29–30). Errors in the fire perimeter seem less 

likely once the fire has been contained, especially in developed areas, where houses are closely 

inspected. Upon our initial analysis of the fire perimeters and structures, it was clear that the 

undamaged structure dataset included structures in unburnt areas outside the fire perimeter. We 

excluded these structures from our analysis. We also excluded all houses built prior to 1901.37

Table 6.1 summarizes the 15,486 houses included in our analysis. 

Degree of Damages Incurred During the Camp Fire 

As shown in Table 6.1, not all homes suffered the same degree of damage during the Camp 

Fire. Figure 6.2 shows a histogram of the number of homes built in each year, grouped by the 

level of damage. Figure 6.3 shows the change in damage rates over time. Several features of the 

data stand out. First, survivability has been increasing over time, particularly between the 1970s 

and 1990s. Second, there is not a clear step in 2008 as might be expected if the implementation 

of Chapter 7A had a sudden impact on the survivability of houses built in 2008 and later. 

However, relatively few homes were built after 2008, which make estimates of damage rates 

more difficult and hence measuring the impact of Chapter 7A more challenging. Third, most of 

 

33 According to CAL FIRE maps, nearly all of Paradise (a Local Responsibility Area) and all of Magalia and areas 

to the east of Paradise are designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones; the remainder of the Camp Fire 

perimeter (areas to the south and southwest) is split between high and moderate fire hazard severity zones (Office of 

the State Fire Marshal, undated). 

34 42 U.S.C. 70 regulates manufactured homes throughout the United States. The Department of Housing and Urban 

Development through its Office of Manufactured Housing Programs is responsible for developing the Manufactured 

Home Construction and Safety Standards (24 C.F.R. 3280). 

35 See California Department of Housing and Community Development (2012). 

36 The CAL FIRE Camp Fire perimeter map was obtained from ArcGIS REST Services Directory (undated b). In 

addition, perimeter maps for a large number of historic fires are available from CAL FIRE (undated d). 

37 Some houses show a year built value that was missing (355 houses), zero (122), 1900 (532), or between 1 and 

1,860 (8). Assuming that many of these values may be invalid, we excluded all houses for which the year built is 

recorded as before 1901. 
49 

the homes were either undamaged or destroyed. Very few homes had partial damage, most likely 

because the speed of the fire made it impossible to suppress house fires once they had ignited. 

Table 6.1. Counts and Damage Levels of Houses in the 2018 Camp Fire 

Year Built 

Before 2008 2008 or Later

Permanent homes: undamaged 1,790 138 

Permanent homes: partially damaged 401 31 

Permanent homes: destroyed 9,525 143 

Permanent homes: total 11,716 312 

 

Manufactured homes: undamaged 216 9 

Manufactured homes: partially damaged 27 2 

Manufactured homes: destroyed 3,155 49 

Manufactured homes: total 3,398 60 

NOTE: Partial damage includes houses assessed as affected (1–9 percent damage), 

minor damage (10–25 percent), and major damage (26–50 percent) 

Figure 6.2. Level of Damages in the 2018 Camp Fire for Homes Built in Each Year 

NOTE: Partial damage includes houses assessed as affected (1–9 percent damage), 

minor damage (10–25 percent), and major damage (26–50 percent).

0

100

200

300

400

500

190119141919192319271931193519391943194719511955195919631967197119751979198319871991199519992003200720112015

Number  of Single Family Structures

Undamaged Partial (1‐50%) Destroyed (>50%)
50 

Figure 6.3. Share of Damaged Homes in the 2018 Camp Fire for 

Homes Built in Each Year 

NOTE: Five-year average is calculated based on the number of homes built in each year and 

the two years before and after that year. 

The results in Figure 6.3 show that newer homes generally survived at higher rates than 

older homes—which is consistent with newer building techniques that improve survivability. 

For example, newer houses seem more likely to have double-paned windows, which likely 

increases survivability to fires. According to the DINS data from the Camp Fire, whereas about 

half of damaged homes built during the 1940s had multipane windows, that figure rose to 

around 80 percent of homes built in 2000 or later. Syphard and Keeley (2019) estimated that 

damaged homes with multipaned windows were about 94 percent as likely to be heavily 

damaged than homes without them. However, because the data on undamaged homes do not 

include information about these features, it is not possible to fully ascertain their impacts. 

Therefore we use year built, which is observed for all homes, as a proxy for general 

improvements to building techniques. 

Even if the improvements in survivability in newer houses are caused by improvements in 

building design, such improvements may or may not have been brought about by changes in 

codes and standards. Figure 6.3 shows relatively steady improvement in survivability beginning 

with houses built in the early 1970s, with the biggest jump in survivability occurring among 

houses built after the late 1990s, all well before Chapter 7A came into effect. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Damaged Share Damaged Share 5yr Avg
51 

Factors That May Confound the Perceived Relationship Between House 

Age and Survivability 

A major limitation of the previous analysis is that building age may be correlated with factors 

that affect survivability beyond building construction or design. Factors such as topography, 

vegetation, and housing density (which can depend on lot size) all affect the probability of a 

home’s survival, and these factors may also be correlated with the year a home was built. The 

analysis from the previous section might show a correlation between survivability and the age of 

houses even if there is no relationship between building construction or design and survivability. 

This section shows that there are indeed correlations between house age and other important 

risk factors. 

Building age is not distributed randomly within the fire perimeter. Figure 6.4 shows how 

house age varies, while Figure 6.5 shows how the diversity of age varies in 250 m radius pixels. 

Housing in the center of Paradise is diverse in its age, having been built throughout the 1900s 

and 2000s. Housing in some cells in Paradise and eastern Magalia represent up to nine different 

decades of housing construction. The southern half of Magalia is a master-planned community 

developed starting in the late 1970s. Areas on the periphery of Paradise—as well as those in 

many isolated areas outside of Paradise—are typically newer, with an average year built in the 

2000s. Also, in a few areas on the periphery of Paradise, the average year built is as early as 

the 1930s. These isolated areas tend to be less diverse in age and have lower densities. 

Because house age is not randomly distributed within the fire perimeter, housing age is 

correlated with other potential risk factors that are also not randomly distributed within the fire 

perimeter. If these risk factor affect areas with older homes more than areas with newer homes, 

then the age of housing may be falsely perceived as determining survivability. For example, 

vegetation and topography vary throughout the affected areas (Rocchio, 2019). Forest dominates 

the northeast of the fire perimeter, grasses the west, while Paradise straddles a mixture of the 

two as well as shrubs and developed areas. If newer housing tends to be in areas with more 

fire-resistant vegetation or topography,38 building age may appear to be driving increases in 

survivability when survivability is actually being driven by these unobserved factors. 

Fire behavior may also confound the analysis of increased survivability. Fires vary in 

intensity throughout the fire perimeter. During the Camp Fire some areas (especially within 

Paradise) were subject to extensive spotting ignitions, likely from firebrands blown from the 

 

38 The U.S. Forest Service (Dillon, 2018) has constructed a Wildfire Hazard Potential index for the United States 

based on simulations of the likelihood and intensity of fires. Magalia and the surrounding area are largely assessed 

to be very high risk, while most of Paradise is high to very high risk. Areas directly east and west of Paradise, where 

many of the more isolated homes tend to be located, are largely assessed as moderate risk. CAL FIRE’s Fire and 

Resource Assessment Program ratings are similar, with Paradise, Magalia, and areas to the north and east being 

dominated with “very high” hazard areas while areas to the south and west being dominated with “high” and 

“moderate” hazard areas (see CAL FIRE, undated c). 
52 

main fire and burning structures (Rocchio, 2019). If this fire behavior was correlated with the 

age of structures (e.g., if newer subdivisions outside of Paradise experienced less intense fire 

than older subdivisions within Paradise), it would appear that older houses were less survivable 

than newer houses, even if the fire’s behavior was driving survivability. 

Figure 6.4. Average Year Built for Single-Family Homes 

NOTE: The average year built is calculated using moving average of year built of single-family homes within 

250 m using the “Grid (Moving Average)” tool in QGIS. The tool creates a grid where each pixel is 

approximately 125m and calculates the average year built in the 250 m radius around that pixel. Areas in white 

do not have any single-family homes within 250 m. 
53 

Figure 6.5. Number of Decades Represented by the Year Housing was Built 

NOTES: Houses were mapped to a 250 m grid. Grid cells without houses are white. 

Density is another potential driver of survivability that may be correlated with house age. 

NIST laboratory research has shown experimentally that decreasing the distances between 

structures increases the risk of fires spreading across multiple structures (Maranghides and 

Johnsson, 2008).39 Several post-fire surveys have supported this conclusion. Syphard, Brennan, 

 

39 Structure-to-structure ignition has been recognized for millennia as a driver of urban conflagrations. In the United 

States, for example, urban conflagrations in several U.S. cities in the late 1800s led to the emergence of the first 

model building code, the National Building Code (Spence, Wells, and Boring, 1981, pp. 4–5). Cohen (1999) 

recognized that the same hazard may exist in the WUI since a highly ignitable home is a “potential participant in 

the continuation of wildland fire” (p. 194). 
54 

and Keeley (2014) used regression analysis to show that low density and less distance to major 

roads were the most important variables for explaining survivability of structures in fires in San 

Diego County between 2001 and 2010. Survey results of the 2012 Waldo Canyon Fire near and 

in Colorado Springs showed that fires can ignite rapidly in high density neighborhoods; this 

impedes firefighting and further reduces survivability (Maranghides, et al., 2015). These studies 

were further validated when the Camp Fire was observed as spreading from structure to structure 

(Curwen and Serna, 2018). 

However, low density can also be associated with risks. Syphard et al. (2012) found that 

homes in less dense, fire-prone areas of San Diego County and the Santa Monica Mountains 

were at greatest risk. Although these homes were not exposed to nearby structures, Syphard et al. 

(2012, pp. 4–5) note that “scattered, isolated structures are more difficult for firefighters to 

defend, and poor firefighter access may explain why housing clusters with fewer roads were 

more vulnerable in San Diego County.” 

Figure 6.6 maps the density of single-family housing based on the number of single-family 

structures within 250 m of each point on the map, while Figure 6.7 maps the percentage of 

single-family homes within each 250 m radius pixel that was damaged. Higher density areas 

clearly experienced greater rates of damage in the Camp Fire. We hypothesize that firefighting 

capacity may be less relevant for the Camp Fire because there was relatively little chance to fight 

the fire within the major population centers. Damage among homes in the less dense fringes of 

Paradise varied considerably, with damages being lowest among the newer homes to the south 

of Paradise. 

Measuring the Impact of Year Built on Survivability 

We developed two econometric models to estimate the impact of year built on housing 

survivability. These are probit models with a binary measure of damage as the dependent 

variable. In order to isolate the effect of year built on survivability, the models control for other, 

potentially confounding factors that may influence survivability, including housing density and 

whether the home is permanent or manufactured. In order to account for unobserved local 

confounding factors, such as local fire intensity, exposure to potential structure-to-structure 

ignition, topography, and vegetation, we used spatial models that match each house to five 

nearest neighboring houses to consider the level of survivability that should have been expected, 

all else equal, based on the performance of neighboring houses.40 We expected houses to have 

 

40 We considered alternative definitions of neighbors, such as changing the number of number of neighbors or 

weighting neighbors based on the inverse distance so that houses with fewer than five close neighbors weight only 

their nearby neighbors. Those alternatives did not have a substantial impact on the model results. We explored an 

alternative modeling strategy that overlayed a grid on the fire damage area and compared the houses within grid 

cells, but we decided not to pursue the strategy because it removed meaningful comparisons of close neighbors with 

different outcomes that fell across cell boundaries. Another strategy suggested by a reviewer that could be pursued 
55 

Figure 6.6. Density of Single-Family Housing 

NOTES: Density is calculated as the number of single-family houses within a 250 m radius. Areas shown 

in white do not have any houses within 250 m. 

 

in the future is to identify neighboring “twins” that look similar except for their year built and their survival and 

compare the likelihood of survivable for different decades built. We did not pursue this approach, because it would 

require a substantial effort to identify these twin pairs and implement a new estimation methodology, and because 

the results had been robust to different modeling strategies that had been more straightforward to implement. Such 

an approach might be especially valuable if it identified a smaller number of houses for further survey so that more 

detailed information about their construction features could also be included in the model. 
56 

Figure 6.7. Interpolation of Average Damage Intensity 

NOTES: Damage intensity is calculated using moving average of damaged share of single-family homes within 

250 m. Areas in white do not have any single-family homes within 250 m. 

greater survivability when most of their neighbors survived (and vice versa) because this 

suggests unobserved local factors, such as fire intensity and structure-to-structure ignition, were 

less severe in that location. These controls allowed us to more accurately assess the relationship 

between the age of a home and its survivability,41 with the goal of informing whether houses 

 

41 Figure 6.3 suggests that houses have become more survivable over time, but Figure 6.7 shows that damage of 

neighboring houses is strongly correlated. If new houses, for example, tend to be built in less vulnerable locations, 

then it may appear that houses are becoming more survivable over time even though the real driver is that houses are 

being built in less vulnerable locations. These econometric models control for these factors to better estimate the 

true, unbiased relationship between age of houses and their survivability. 
57 

built under more recent standards and building practices were more likely to survive the Camp 

Fire wildfire. 

Two Approaches 

We used two different approaches to measure the relationship between the age of the house 

and its survivability. Both approaches included the outcomes of neighboring houses as a control 

to account for unobserved local confounding factors, but the two models differ in how they 

determine the risk neighboring houses impose in hypothetical counterfactuals. We refer to these 

two approaches as a “static” model and a “recursive” model. We present both approaches 

because neither is inherently superior to the other. 

The static model treats the unobserved local risks proxied by neighboring houses’ damage as 

fixed across hypothetical counterfactuals. Both models use the decade in which a house was built 

as one predictor of its survivability. In the static model, if we estimate how survivability would 

change if all houses were built in 2000, we still assume all other factors, including the extent to 

which neighboring houses are damaged, remain unchanged. 

The recursive model acknowledges that these unobserved local risks, particularly structureto-structure ignition, may change in hypothetical counterfactuals. In the recursive model, if we 

estimate how survivability would change if all houses were built in 2000, we account for the 

fact that if a house being built in the 2000 instead of the 1960s reduces its chances of being 

destroyed, that would also reduce the chances its neighbors will be destroyed. This impact 

propagates to some extent by reducing the probability of damage to its neighbors’ neighbors, 

and so on. Structural improvements across houses thereby see a magnified effect in the 

recursive model because the improvements reduce the likelihood of damage to a house while 

also reducing the likelihood of damage to a house’s neighbors. 

This difference in the treatment of risk from neighboring homes is the only difference 

between the two models; all other independent variables are the same. We do not view one 

approach as inherently superior to the other, as which estimate is most appropriate depends on 

the extent to which the key unobserved local factors are mainly constant across counterfactuals 

(such as topography and geography) or items that would change in counterfactuals (such as 

structure-to-structure ignition). 

In the static model, the damage to the five nearest neighbors are weighted equally, so each 

house’s spatial lag variable has a value of 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, or 1 depending on whether 0, 1, 2, 

3, 4, or 5 of its neighbors are damaged, respectively. The main benefits of this approach is that it 

is much simpler to understand, interpret, and implement. The main drawback is that it does not 

account for changes in risk from neighboring households in our hypothetical analysis of expected 

damages when all houses are built in a particular decade—that is, the value of 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 

0.8, or 1 remains unchanged. 

In the recursive model, the average damage to neighboring homes is based on the predicted 

probability of damage, rather than a binary indicator of whether damage occurred in practice. 
58 

Because the predicted probability of damage for one observation is dependent on the predicted 

probability of damage for another observation, the probit must be calculated using a simultaneous 

equations approach, which essentially iterates over possible coefficient values until it converges 

on a stable solution. The main benefit of this approach is that it accounts for changes in risk from 

neighboring households in our hypothetical analysis of expected damages when all houses are 

built in a particular decade. 

In other words, the recursive model accounts for a house imposing less risk on its neighbors 

if it was built in a more recent year (if houses built in more recent years are at lower risk of 

damage). However, the main downside of this approach is that it may incorporate impacts 

beyond the impact of building a home to updated standards; it could also reflect differences in 

risk to newer homes due to geography, fire intensity, or other variables that are independent of 

home construction and would not be changed in practice if all houses were retroactively updated 

to more recent codes. As a result, the recursive model could exaggerate the extent to which the 

probability of damage to neighboring homes could be reduced. 

Table 6.2 presents summary statistics of the variables included in this analysis. We note that 

damaged houses have about twice as many damaged neighbors (93 percent) than undamaged 

houses (47 percent). This highlights the importance of considering damage to neighbors when 

predicting whether a house is damaged. Further econometric details associated with this analysis 

are discussed in Appendix C. 

Table 6.2. Summary Statistics for Damaged and Undamaged Houses in the 2018 Camp Fire 

Undamaged Damaged All 

Count % of Row Count % of Row Count % of Total 

All houses 2,153 14% 13,333 86% 15,486 100% 

Permanent houses 1,928 16% 10,100 84% 12,028 78% 

Manufactured houses 225 7% 3,233 93% 3,458 22% 

Mean 

Standard 

Deviation Mean 

Standard 

Deviation Mean 

Standard 

Deviation 

Year built 1983.8 18.89 1972.0 17.73 1973.6 18.36 

Density (100 m) 4.69 4.48 8.6 5.99 8.06 5.96 

Density (1 km) 327.29 289.10 518.36 211.71 491.79 233.62 

Average share of neighbors damaged 47% 0.35 93% 0.16 86% 0.35 

NOTE: Density reflects the number of neighboring houses within a 100 m or 1 km radius. 

Model Results 

Figure 6.8 shows the predicted probability of damage, assuming all houses were built in the 

same decade. For example, if all houses were built in the 1950s, the recursive model predicts that 

they would average a 97-percent chance of damage, while the static model predicts they would 

average an 89-percent chance of damage. 
59 

Figure 6.8. Predicted Probability of Damage If All Houses Were Built in a Given Decade 

NOTES: Ninety-five-percent confidence intervals are in brackets for the static model. We were 

not able to calculate confidence intervals for the recursive model. 

Both the recursive and static model show increasing levels of survivability between the 1950s 

and 2000s, then a reduction in survivability in the 2010s. As shown in Figure 6.1, there are fewer 

houses on which to base estimates prior to 1940 and after 2010. The standard errors on the static 

model are especially large during those years for this reason, and we similarly have less confidence 

in the precision of point estimates of the recursive model prior to 1940 and for 2010.42 As 

described previously, differences between these estimates are driven by differences in the role of 

accounting for feedback loops between neighboring houses, although the differences might also 

include the effect of other geographically correlated features (such as geography, fire intensity, 

or other spatially correlated variables) being similar to what was experienced by households built 

in that decade. Thus, while the static model might not fully account for the benefits of reduced 

structure-to-structure ignition, we cannot say with confidence whether the difference between the 

recursive and static model over- or under-estimates the impact of structure-to-structure ignition. 

We find no evidence to support the hypothesis that the 2008 implementation of the WUI 

building code in Chapter 7A led to a discrete increase in housing survivability. Both models 

 

42 We were not able to calculate standard errors for the recursive model due to its complexity, although we expect 

the true standard errors are larger in 2000 (which has a larger standard error in the static model than in previous 

decades), 2010, and prior to 1940 and that the recursive model’s standard errors are likely to be larger than those of 

the static model due to its feedback effects. 

45%

55%

65%

75%

85%

95%

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

Probability of Damage

Assumed Year All Houses were Built

Recursive Model Static Model
60 

predict houses built in the 2000s to be the most survivable, but most years in that decade were 

not subject to the requirements of Chapter 7A.43

Given the lack of evidence regarding the impact of Chapter 7A, there are other explanations 

of why survivability of housing has been increasing in newer homes (at least until the 2010s) 

other than changes in building construction driven by WUI building codes and laws. We 

hypothesize that other drivers or factors associated with both building age and survivability 

could also explain this result. These include 

 Changes to other codes or building practices: Building codes are regularly updated. In 

2005 the defensible space law was amended to increase the required defensible space 

from 30 ft. to 100 ft.44 Codes with other primary purposes may also reduce fire risks. For 

example, energy efficiency requirements around double-paned windows can increase 

wildfire survivability. Housing styles and best practice for construction (beyond those 

required by codes) may change over time in ways that may be correlated with fire risk. 

For example, a Headwaters Economics/IBHS report on building wildfire-resistant homes 

recommended installing weed- and erosion-control fabric within 5 ft. of houses to prevent 

growth (Quarles and Pohl, 2018). In addition, newer homes may be developed on larger 

lots, which could increase stand-off distances and decrease housing density.

 Changes in code compliance: Changes in codes do not necessarily lead to changes to 

building design if the codes are not adopted by municipalities or builders and homeowners 

do not abide by the code requirements. There is some evidence that compliance has been 

increasing in California between 2005 and 2015, which may have contributed in part to 

improved survivability among homes built in the 2000s and 2010s.

45

 Difference in maintenance of homes: Older homes may be more likely to have deferred 

maintenance risks, such as encroachment of vegetation into a house’s defensible space, 

relative to newer homes. 

Damage to neighboring households is a major driver of risk in both models. Although we 

cannot set hypothetical values of damage to neighboring households in the recursive model, the 

static model predicts the average house with no damaged neighbors has a 14-percent chance of 

damage versus a 96-percent chance of damage if all its neighbors are damaged. This result is 

consistent with structure-to-structure ignition being a major mechanism by which houses in the 

 

43 We explored a variety of alternative model formulations with different cutoffs in years and did not see evidence 

that houses built after 2005 (when the first provisions of Chapter 7A were implemented) or built after 2008 showed 

any sudden increases in survivability. However, many of the models pointed to the late 1990s to early 2000s as a 

time when there may have been a sudden increase. 

44 See CAL FIRE (undated b).

45 Insurance Services Office, Inc., grades building code adoption and enforcement in communities through its 

Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS), which grades on a scale of 1 (best) to 10 (worst) using 

criteria such as the currency of codes and the qualifications of enforcement employees (Dwyer, 2012). Average 

grades improved nationally between 2005 and 2015 for residences from 5.6 to 5.2 and improved in California from 

6 to 3 (Insurance Services Office, Inc., undated). As of October 2019, the Town of Paradise had a BCEGS score of 3 

(Butte County, 2019, p. E-62). We were unable to assess trends in the scores—as of May 2013 the BCEGS score of 

Town of Paradise had not been assessed (Butte County, 2013, p. E.36). 
61 

Camp Fire ignited; this is similar to other observations such as those by NIST researchers in 

the Waldo Canyon Fire (Maranghides et al., 2015). However, this strong correlation between 

neighboring houses’ outcomes could also reflect neighboring houses sharing other high-risk 

characteristics. Collecting and analyzing additional data about structure features, land use, and 

fire behavior—for both damaged and undamaged homes and areas—would support further 

investigation of this issue. 

The Value of Potential Damage Reduction 

Given the current difficulties in establishing whether changes in WUI standards and codes 

have led to changes to WUI building design and whether those design changes have led to 

increased survivability of buildings to wildland fires (see Figure 6.1), it would be premature 

to attempt to measure the economic impacts of WUI building codes and standards. Therefore, 

in this section we present a simple estimate of the difference between the actual property loss 

from the Camp Fire and a hypothetical property loss that would have resulted if all houses had 

been built in the 2000s (i.e., the decade with the lowest predicted level of damage). We refer to 

this hypothetical property loss as the adjusted loss. This difference is intended to represent an 

estimate of the cumulative economic impact of advancements in wildfire survivability resulting 

from standards, codes, and other influences over the past ~ 100 years. 

Our assessment is limited to property loss damages that would be potentially averted, per the 

results of our earlier analysis. We acknowledge that there are many potential direct impacts to 

humans (i.e., deaths and injuries) and the natural and built environment (e.g., cleanup costs of the 

Camp Fire were estimated at $3 billion [Elias, 2018]), but the damages to structures appear to be 

the most prominent type of direct impact that would benefit from changes to building codes. 

We estimate the potential economic benefits of these changes according to the following 

equation: 

Damage Averted ሺ$ሻ ൌ Actual Loss ሺ$ሻ െ Adjusted Loss ሺ$ሻ, 

where 

Adjusted Loss ሺ$ሻ ൌ Estimated % of Homes Damaged ൈ Actual Lossሺ$ሻ

Actual % of Homes Damaged.

For “Actual Losses ($),” we use the $9.3 billion estimate from CoreLogic (Jeffery et al., 2019), 

which uses a database of residential properties to estimate the reconstruction cost value of 

damages.46 CoreLogic’s value is based on 18,804 destroyed residential structures. This is larger 

than the 13,108 damaged or destroyed single family homes to which we restrict our analysis; for 

 

46 Munich RE estimated total damages of the Camp Fire to be $16.5 billion (Löw, 2019). However, this figure is not 

limited to damage in residential properties. 
62 

simplicity this calculation assumes the percentage of these other residential structures that 

were damaged (or would be damaged in our hypothetical estimate) is similar to that of the 

single-family homes examined in our analysis. 

Table 6.3 shows that, under these assumptions, the static model estimates the damage 

averted to be $600 million if all houses had the same survivability as those built in the 2000s, 

while the recursive model estimates the damage averted to be $4 billion if all houses had the 

same survivability as houses built in the 2000s. We note that the $600 million estimate may be 

low because it does not fully account for the benefits of reduced structure-to-structure ignition. 

However, we acknowledge that the $4 billion estimate may be biased in unknown directions 

because it may extrapolate benefits beyond housing construction (such as geographic 

characteristics and the average fire intensity to which houses built in the 2000s were exposed) 

to all houses. 

Table 6.3. Estimates of Camp Fire Damage Averted If All Residential 

Structure Were as Survivable as Single-Family Houses Built in the 2000s 

Recursive Static 

Actual loss ($) $9.3 billion $9.3 billion 

Actual % of homes damaged 86% 86%

Estimated % of homes damaged 49.2% 80.5%

 

Adjusted loss ($) $5.3 billion $8.7 billion

Damage averted ($) $4.0 billion $0.6 billion 

With richer data, similar calculations could be performed to understand the potential damage 

averted from specific building features. For example, if undamaged houses had vent mesh data, 

then the models could include vent mesh as an explanatory variable and predict changes in 

damage likelihood if all houses were retrofitted with improved vent mesh, which could be valued 

according to the equation above. 

Conclusion 

WUI standards and codes, and the research underlying them, are nascent in comparison 

with the standards, codes, and research involving smoke alarms. As WUI science matures, 

new standards and codes will be developed and their economic impacts will become clearer. 

Improvements in data collection could support this process, particularly data collection on 

undamaged homes and on compliance with existing WUI standards. Current data rarely assess 

whether damaged structures complied with code requirements, which challenges assessments of 

the efficacy of code requirements. Similarly, a lack of data on the characteristics of undamaged 

structures makes it difficult to identify factors associated with improved survivability. NIST has 

been encouraging improvements in data collection, and some efforts are already underway. 
63 

Using the 2018 Camp Fire as a case study, this chapter has found evidence that houses 

have generally become more survivable over time, although data limitations prevent precise 

measurement of the relative survivability of the very oldest and the most recent homes. These 

results are consistent with a hypothesis that improvements to building codes over time have led 

to (or occurred alongside) changes in building designs and materials that have improved the 

survivability of houses to fire. However, our results do not find a statistically significant increase 

in survivability following the WUI-specific building codes first enforced in 2005. 

We used two different approaches to estimate the potentially averted damaged if all houses 

were as survivable as houses built in 2000 to 2009 (the decade when houses built had the lowest 

damage rates). Our static approach estimates this increased survivability would have resulted 

in a 6-percent reduction in the number of damaged houses (from 86 percent to 80.5 percent), 

with associated economic value of approximately $600 million. However, this method likely 

underestimates the benefits of reduced structure-to-structure ignition. Our recursive approach, 

which is designed to account for structure-to-structure ignition, estimates this increased 

survivability would have resulted in a 43-percent reduction in the number of damaged houses 

(from 86 percent to 49.2 percent), with associated economic value of approximately $4 billion. 

However, this method may over- or underestimate the extent to which neighboring structures 

can reduce their ignition risk through changes in construction practices. 

Although the Camp Fire is a historic outlier in its severity, the value of potential reduction in 

damages if all houses were as survivable as newer houses—worth at least hundreds of millions, 

if not billions of dollars for a single WUI fire, by our estimates—along with the potential for 

future severe WUI fires, appears to clearly justify a robust research effort to understand how to 

improve structure survivability to fires. 

 
64 

7. Conclusion 

A large number of steps and organizations are involved in the process of developing new 

fire safety standards, as with new standards in general. NIST’s principal role comes at the very 

beginning of this process—providing the foundational research on which subsequent activities 

are built. NIST research helps SDOs develop consensus around potential standards, which are 

often incorporated into public building codes and, in turn, save lives by improving fire safety. 

In addition, NIST researchers and staff proactively engage with stakeholders to ensure that 

NIST’s findings and other research results are being transitioned and incorporated into the 

standards and codes development process. NIST researchers and staff actively participate in 

SDOs, often serving as committee chairs or in other leadership positions. In these roles, they 

help inform other committee members, evaluate and update existing standards, and propose 

new standards. We found that there is a clear sense of respect and gratitude among SDO 

representatives for NIST’s role in standard development activities 

NIST research is also instrumental in the development and design of standardized tests that 

are used to systematically evaluate technologies and to confirm compliance with standards. 

Indeed, the need for nationally standardized methods, processes, and measures was what led to 

the creation of the organization. As new products and safety challenges continue to arise, the 

need for such services continues. 

NIST’s key contributions described in this report include 

 continuous research on fire safety since 1914 

 continuous membership and active participation on technical committees for several SDOs 

addressing fire safety standards, including NFPA, ASTM, UL, ICC, ISO, and others 

 leveraging early research to begin advocating for including smoke alarms in homes and 

to launch studies of smoke alarm design, performance, and use, which led to the first 

smoke alarm standard 

 continuing to provide valuable research on smoke alarm performance, testing, and siting, 

with particular attention to evolving home furnishing materials and nuisance alarms 

 Contributing, through its cumulative body of work, to 95 percent of U.S. homes having a 

working smoke alarm 

 helping demonstrate the importance of firebrands in igniting structures in wildland fires 

 conducting detailed analyses of fires to assess modes of fire spread and structure damage 

mechanisms and to identify protective measures and their effectiveness 

 developing standardized testing equipment and methods that help objectively examine 

impacts of wildfire safety measures. 

Our analysis identified a number of important contributions from NIST toward the 

development and adoption of standards for smoke alarms and WUI protection. While our 

quantitative analyses were not able to detect significant economic benefits that can be linked 
65 

directly to these standards, this in no way suggests that the standards, and NIST’s contributions 

to them, do not have great value. In the case of smoke alarms, the most important gains were 

likely made prior to the time period for which we conducted our analysis. Conversely, in the 

WUI setting, standards are still in the active research stages, and the biggest benefits are likely 

yet to be realized. More generally, standards are likely to have indirect economic benefits, such 

as increasing technology development and adoption and efficiency of markets, which our 

analyses cannot capture. 

Many organizations, including NIST, are involved in supporting the development and 

implementation of fire safety standards. The results of their collaborative activities are not 

easily traced to individual contributors. However, it is clear that NIST’s role is critical and that 

substitutes for NIST are not readily apparent. NIST’s accomplishments and historical continuity 

in fire safety research, its mission- and needs-driven approach to selecting research topics, and 

its credibility for conducting objective, high quality research make it a crucial contributor in the 

development of fire safety standards. If NIST were to become unable to perform its research 

activities, long-term progress on fire safety standards would be substantially affected. 

 
66 

Appendix A. National Institute of Stands and Technology Fire 

Research Division Survey 

In September 2019, we conducted a survey of NIST Fire Research Division research staff to 

help us understand their involvement in standards development. The questions asked included 

the level and duration of involvement with SDOs and with particular smoke alarm and WUI 

standards. The division research staff were contacted via email by the Division Chief, who 

provided a brief description of the study and a link to the survey instrument. The survey was sent 

out to all 42 scientific researchers in the Fire Research Division, which included 27 full-time staff, 

3 part-time staff, 3 contract researchers, 6 foreign guest researchers, and 3 postdoctoral associates. 

We received 29 completed survey responses from these current NIST researchers, as well as one 

response from an emeritus researcher.47

The survey instrument is reproduced below. We deliberately kept the instrument very brief; 

we estimate that it took no more than five minutes to complete.

 

47 Our presented results do not currently include the emeritus researcher in order to reflect the activities of current 

NIST staff at the time of the survey. However, the emeritus researcher, who was deeply involved in both NIST and 

SDOs, suggests that this survey does not reflect an unusual level of engagement with SDOs but rather a steady focus 

on engagement with SDOs. 
67 

The Role of NIST Fire Safety Research in Standards Development 9/25/19, 4)35 PM

Page 1 of 3

The Role of NIST Fire Safety Research in Standards

Development

About This Survey

Through its Technology Partnerships Office, NIST has asked the RAND Corporation

(www.rand.org) to evaluate NIST's contribution towards the development of standards in

two specific areas: smoke alarms and wildland-urban interface (WUI) fire protection. As part

of that effort, we are reaching out to researchers in the Fire Research Division to understand

their interactions with standards development organizations (SDOs). This information will

help inform the second part of the study, which will estimate the economic impact of these

standards.

We would very much appreciate you completing this brief survey, which is expected to take

no more than 5 minutes to complete. Please click the "Done" button at the bottom of the

page to submit your response. Responses will kept anonymous and presented in aggregated

form only. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Nelson Bryner, Chief of the

NIST Fire Research Division (nelson.bryner@nist.gov) or Ben Miller, co-project leader at

RAND (bmiller@rand.org). Thanks in advance for taking a few moments to help us with this

important work.

1. Have you ever been involved with any of the following standards development

organizations? Please check all that apply. If none, please check any column in the "I have

not been involved with any standards development organizations" row and skip the

remaining questions. Please still click the "Done" button below to submit your survey

response.

NonVoting

Member

Voting

Member

Committee or

Subcommittee

Chair

Other

ASTM International

International Code Council (ICC)

International Organization for Standardization

(ISO)

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

(NEMA)

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

Underwriters Laboratories (UL)

Other
68 

The Role of NIST Fire Safet y Research in Standards Development 9/25/19, 4)35 PM

Page 2 of 3

I have not been involved with any standards

development organizations

2. Have you been involved with any of the following standards?

ASTM E2707-15: Standard Test Method for Determining Fire Penetration of Exterior Wall

Assemblies Using a Direct Flame Impingement Exposure

ASTM E2957-17: Standard Test Method for Resistance to Wildfire Penetration of Eaves,

Soffits and Other Projections

ASTM WK23700: New Test Method for Evaluating Roof Field Vent Response to Wind Blown

Flame and Burning Ember Exposure

ASTM D2898: Standard Practice for Accelerated Weathering of Fire-Retardant-Treated

Wood for Fire Testing

ASTM D3909/D3909M: Standard Specification for Asphalt Roll Roofing (Glass Felt)

Surfaced With Mineral Granules

ASTM D6662: Standard Specification for Polyolefin-Based Plastic Lumber Decking Boards

ASTM D7032: Standard Specification for Establishing Performance Ratings for Wood-Plastic

Composite and Plastic Lumber Deck Boards, Stair Treads, Guards, and Handrails

ASTM E84: Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials

ASTM E108: Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Roof Coverings

ASTM E119: Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials

ASTM E136: Standard Test Method for Assessing Combustibility of Materials Using a

Vertical Tube Furnace at 750°C

ASTM E2652: Standard Test Method for Assessing Combustibility of Materials Using a Tube

Furnace with a Cone-shaped Airflow Stabilizer, at 750°C

ASTM E2768: Standard Test Method for Extended Duration Surface Burning Characteristics

of Building Materials (30 min Tunnel Test)

ASTM E2886: Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Ability of Exterior Vents to Resist

the Entry of Embers and Direct Flame Impingement

ICC International Building Code/International Fire Code

ICC Wildland Urban Interface Code

ISO 12239: Fire Detection and Fire Alarm Systems - Smoke Alarms (2003); Smoke Alarms

Using Scattered Light, Transmitted Light or Ionization (2010)

NEMA SB-11: Guide for Proper Use of System Smoke Detectors

NFPA 72: National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code

NFPA 101: Life Safety Code

NFPA 1141: Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Development in Wildland,

Rural, and Suburban Areas

NFPA 1143: Standard for Wildland Fire Management

NFPA 1144: Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire

NFPA 5000: Building Construction and Safety Code

UL 217: Standard for Smoke Alarms

UL 268: Smoke Detectors for Fire Alarm Systems

UL 273: Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials

UL 790: Standard for Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Roof Coverings

Other, please specify:
69 

The Role of NIST Fire Safety Research in Standards Development 9/25/19, 4)35 PM

Page 3 of 3

3. Which most closely describes the amount of time you spend on activities with or for

standards development organizations?

Only trivial amounts of time

I typically attend one meeting per year OR spend a few days per year supporting SDO

activities

I attend meetings and spend a few days per year supporting SDO activities

I attend meetings and spend a few days per month supporting SDO activities

I spend more time than any of the above options on SDO activities

4. What is your total length of service for all of the activities listed above?

< 1 year

1–3 years

3–5 years

> 5 years

5. Have you ever submitted a formal proposal, revision, or comments for this SDO?

ASTM International

International Code Council (ICC)

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

Underwriters Laboratories (UL)

Other, please specify

6. Have you ever engaged with SDO activities or deliberations in other ways (e.g., given a

presentation at an SDO event, communicated with SDO members about standards, etc.)?
70 

Appendix B. Statistical Methods for Assessing the Impact of 

Smoke Alarm Standards on Fire Outcomes 

Chapter 4 of this report presents a two-step statistical analysis for examining the relationship 

between the proportion of houses subject to statewide minimum residential building code 

updates and the number of fires, injuries, or fatalities reported to NFIRS. This appendix further 

documents the statistical methods employed in that analysis. 

Step 1: Estimating the Propensity to Report to NFIRS 

A challenge in using NFIRS data for this analysis is that NFIRS is a collection of voluntary 

reports from individual fire departments, rather than comprehensive data from a random selection 

of fire departments. Consequently, outcomes in NFIRS are not necessarily representative of 

average outcomes. However, Butry and Thomas (2012, pg. iii) “develop a statistical approach for 

evaluating the ‘representativeness’ of fire incident data reported in the National Fire Incident 

Reporting System (NFIRS) to depict fire activity in non-reporting cities.”48 We apply an approach 

that is similar in spirit, although ours is designed to ensure “representativeness” at the individual 

fire department level, rather than the city level as implemented by Butry and Thomas (2012). 

Estimating the probability that a fire department reports to NFIRS requires information 

about both departments that report to NFIRS and those that do not. Two additional data sets 

were utilized to obtain variables that may be correlated with the decision of whether or not to 

participate in NFIRS: the Census of Population and Housing (U.S. Census, undated a, undated 

b) and the National Fire Department Registry (USFA, 2020). The Census of Population and 

Housing contains socioeconomic variables describing populations, such as income, sex, and 

race, as well as housing items such as the status of housing units (occupied or unoccupied), 

the median age of housing units, and the median value of housing units. We match fire 

departments to the demographic data of the zip code of their department headquarters.49

The National Fire Department Registry contains basic information about fire departments 

listed with the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA). We use this data to identify departments that 

do not report to NFIRS and to understand information about all fire departments. Unfortunately, 

there is not a single official list of all fire departments in the United States, or even a definitive 

count of how many exist. Evarts and Sein (2020) states that there are 29,705 fire departments, 

 

48 We are grateful to Butry and Thomas for sharing their code and insights with us. 

49 For departments for which we do not know the headquarter’s zip code, we use the zip code most commonly listed 

in the incident address of NFIRS reports provided by that department. 
71 

based on the NFPA Fire Service Survey, 2016–2018, and NFPA Survey of Fire Departments for 

US Fire Experience, 2018 (Evarts and Stein, 2020). USFA (2020) cites an NFPA estimate of 

29,819 fire departments in the United States as of 2017, of which 27,200 are in the USFA registry. 

As of August, 2020, we found 27,176 fire departments in the USFA registry. Most of these 

can be matched to fire departments in the NFIRS database via the commonly used “Fire 

Department ID” (FDID). However, we found 3,503 FDIDs in NFIRS that did not match to the 

USFA registry, and 221 fire departments in the USFA registry that did not have FDIDs.50 Based 

on this information, we believe that there are approximately 30,000 fire departments in the 

United States. Reporting rates vary by year, with more departments reporting to NFIRS in more 

recent years. For example, we were able to match 90 percent of the 2017 NFIRS records to a 

department, and 75 percent of departments to at least one NFIRS record. Of the departments 

that we can match to NFIRS records, we are able to identify or estimate a headquarters zip code 

for almost all departments (more than 99 percent). We were then able to match almost all of 

these zip codes to 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) data (99.78-percent success rate 

for the 2017 NFIRS-USFA data). 

Information from the Census of Population and Housing and the National Fire Department 

Registry shows that primary departments from wealthier and more urban areas that are staffed 

with career firefighters are more likely to report to NFIRS than relatively rural, volunteer-based 

departments (Table B.1). For this reason, adjustments are required to ensure the NFIRS data 

reflect nationally representative outcomes. Like Butry and Thomas (2012), we make these 

adjustments by calculating propensities scores that account for the probability that a given 

department would report to NFIRS, based on observable characteristics of that department. We 

then use this propensity score to place more weight on observations from departments that are 

relatively less likely to report to NFIRS. 

We use a probit model to estimate a propensity score that reflects each fire department’s 

probability of reporting to NFIRS.51 We perform the propensity score estimation separately for 

each year of our data because the number of departments reporting to NFIRS has increased over 

time. This propensity score is calculated based on characteristics of the zip code tabulation area 

of the fire department’s headquarters in 2018 and on characteristics of the fire department itself. 

Characteristics of the zip code tabulation area including the total population; the number of 

residential housing units; the proportion of the population that lives in urban areas; the mean 

per-person income; the proportion of the population living below the poverty threshold; the 

percentage of the population that is white; and the proportion of residential housing units that are 

 

50 We assume departments without listed FDIDs did not report to NFIRS, as an FDID is a required field item for 

reporting to NFIRS. 

51 Specifically, we use the probit model within Stata’s –t effects ps match- algorithm for propensity score matching, 

which produces propensity scores. 
72 

Table B.1. Selection Bias in Reporting to the National Fire Incident Report System, 2017 Data 

Variable 

Mean Value, 

Departments That 

Report to NFIRS 

Mean Value, 

Departments That 

Do Not Report to NFIRS 

F-Statistic for 

Difference 

HQ Zip Code 

Population 12,626 9,338 301.9 

Per capita income $74,796 $68,784 245.5 

Percentage urban 43% 31% 523.7 

Percentage white 86% 85% 22.2 

Number of residential units 5,492 4,066 342.5 

Percentage owner-occupied 62% 58% 271.9 

Percentage vacant 16% 20% 398.4 

 

Department 

Percentage that are a local department 98% 92% 480.1 

Percentage that are the primary agency 33% 17% 663.7 

Percentage that are a purely volunteer 

department 

67% 79% 387.5 

Number of career firefighters 15.34 7.28 32.3 

Number of volunteer firefighters 22.25 20.61 10.8 

SOURCE: RAND analysis of data from NFIRS, the National Fire Department Registry, and ACS. This table reflects 

2017 reports to NFIRS and 2018 ACS data. 

vacant. Characteristics of the fire department include indicators for whether the department is 

staffed with only career firefighters, mostly career firefighters, mostly volunteer firefighters, 

or only volunteer firefighters; the total number of firefighters in the department; the number 

of fire stations in the department; indicators for whether the department is a local or nonlocal 

organization; and an indicator for whether the department is the primary agency for emergency 

management.52 These variables are drawn from two additional data sets: the Census of Population 

and Housing (U.S. Census, undated a, undated b) and the National Fire Department Registry 

(USFA, 2020). 

We use the resulting propensity scores to place more weight on reports from fire departments 

that were less likely to report to NFIRS, which helps ensure the results of our second-stage 

analysis are representative rather than reflecting bias in the type of departments that report to 

NFIRS.53

 

52 These variables were selected by taking our full list of candidate variables from the Census of Population and 

Housing and the National Fire Department Registry and (1) excluding those that are not statistically different 

between reporters and nonreporters, and (2) identifying highly correlated confounding variables and excluding either 

the one with fewer observations or the one with a large p-value/lower F-statistic. Then, because the model would not 

converge if the number of active career and volunteer firefighters were measured separately, we exclude those two 

variables and instead include their sum, which is the total number of active firefighters. 

53 Our results are representative based on the observables included in our propensity score analysis. We cannot 

correct for biases in which fire departments’ reports to NFIRS are uncorrelated with any observed data. 
73 

Step 2: Estimating the Relationship Between Fire Outcomes and the 

Proportion of Houses Built Since Code Enactment 

Once we have determined the proportion of houses built since a code was enacted and how 

much weight to put on reports from different fire departments, the remainder of our analysis is 

fairly straightforward. 

First, we aggregate the number of fires of different severities, as well as the number of 

injuries and fatalities, from the department level to the state level. The propensity scores 

calculated in Step 1 of our analysis are used to construct the probability weights used in this 

aggregation.54 Because states vary considerably in population, we calculate a more comparable 

“per capita” style measure of the number of fires per 100,000 houses for each state and year. 

We then estimate the correlation between the number of fires per 100,000 houses in a state 

and the proportion of that state’s houses that were built following the enactment of a specific 

edition of NFPA 72 into the state code. A separate Poisson regression is run for each possible 

combination of fire severity and NFPA edition. The results are presented in Table 4.3 as a matrix 

of five different severities of fire (from the most severe fires which spread beyond the building 

of origin, to the least severe fires which are confined to the object of origin) and four different 

editions of NFPA 72 (the 1999, 2002, 2007, and 2010 editions).55 All regressions include both 

year and state fixed effects, meaning the results presented in Table 4.3 reflect the correlation 

after accounting for year-specific and state-specific factors (e.g., a particular year or state having 

an unusually large number of high-severity fires). Our main results exclude a small number of 

outliers,56 although results based on all observations are comparable. 

Outliers 

There are several outliers in the data used in this analysis that ex ante appear unrelated to the 

mechanism of interest (the adoption of standards) and could possibly bias results (although this 

analysis shows they do not). First, Figure B.1 shows the number of fires of different severities 

per 100,000 homes (the dependent variable) relative to the proportion of homes built since the 

1999 code was enacted (one of the independent variables of interest; the choice of the 1999 code 

 

54 Specifically, we use Stata’s -collapse- function to aggregate the data from the department-year level to the stateyear level, using the inverse of the propensity score calculated in Step 1 (1/propensity score) as a probability weight. 

55 Sufficient data are not available to examine later editions. 

56 We exclude observations where the residual number of fires of a given severity per 100,000 homes is more than 

4 standard deviations above or below the mean after accounting for state and year fixed effects. In some cases, these 

large outliers are associated with major wildfire outbreaks, and the impacts of wildfires are unlikely to reflect on the 

effectiveness or ineffectiveness of smoke alarm codes. However, Appendix C shows that the inclusion or exclusion 

of these observations does not meaningfully change the results. See Chapter 4 for our separate analysis of the 

potential impact of WUI standards. 
74 

Figure B.1. Outliers in the Number of Fires per Capita 

 

 

is arbitrary and used for example purposes). Some observations clearly stand out as separate 

from the rest. For the highest severity fires, the two most severe outliers correspond to state and 

year combinations that experienced unusually severe wildfires (101 severe fires per 100,000 

homes occurring in Tennessee in 2016, and 49 severe fires per 100,000 homes occurring in 

Alaska in 2015). Outcomes from years with severe wildfires likely do not reflect on the 

effectiveness of smoke alarm standards—severe fires occur regardless of the effectiveness of 
75 

smoke alarm standards. To consistently focus on years and states where the variation is more 

likely to reflect smoke alarm standards, we exclude observations where the dependent variable 

of interest is more than 4 standard deviations from the mean.57

Figure B.2 shows the observations for fatalities and injuries that are more than 4 standard 

deviations from the mean. This figure also makes it clearer why the coefficients for firefighter 

fatalities are so large: Percentage changes are liable to be quite large because all observations are 

at or near zero. Most fatalities in NFIRS are residents, not firefighters. 

Figure B.2. Outliers in Fatalities and Injuries 

 

 

 

57 We recognize that the underlying data is heteroskedastic, and thus this exclusion is more likely to drop 

observations with lower values on the x-axis. We felt that an objective cut-off (here, 4 standard deviations) was 

preferable to hand-picking outliers. As we note in this appendix, our results are comparable if we include all 

observations; any bias caused by our process of outlier selection is trivial. 

We also examine results from excluding observations where the residual variation after controlling for state and 

year fixed effects is more than 4 standard deviations from the mean. These residuals are centered on zero, so the 

exclusion of outliers includes both high and low outcomes. The differences in results between these two methods of 

controlling for outliers are largely imperceptible. 
76 

Chapter 4 presents results that exclude outliers, given our concern about the relevance of 

those observations. Table B.2 presents the results for fire spread that include these outliers. As 

suggested by Figure B.1, the coefficients are larger for fires that spread beyond the building of 

origin and for fires confined to the room of origin, but all coefficients remain insignificant. 

The results are otherwise similar; we find no statistically significant relationship between the 

proportion of housing built since a residential building code update and the number of reported 

fires per 100,000 homes. 

Similarly, Table B.3 presents the results for injuries and fatalities with outliers included. Here 

the coefficients on the number of firefighter injuries per capita are larger but still statistically 

insignificant. The results are again otherwise similar. 

Table B.2. No Statistically Significant Relationship Between the Proportion of Housing Built Since 

Code Updates and the Number of Reported Fires, Including Outliers 

Fire Spread 1999 Edition 2002 Edition 2007 Edition 2010 Edition

Beyond building of origin 1.6% 1.6% 1.0% 1.0% 

Confined to building of origin 1.1% 1.1% 0.9% 0.5% 

Confined to floor of origin 1.0% 1.1% 0.8% 0.4% 

Confined to room of origin 1.4% 1.5% 1.3% 0.8% 

Confined to object of origin 2.4% 2.4% 2.1% 2.1% 

NOTE: None of the results is statistically significant at a 95% confidence level when using heteroskedasticity robust 

standard errors (which are necessary due to heteroskedasticity in this data). 

Table B.3. No Statistically Significant Relationship Between the Proportion of Housing Built Since 

Code Updates and the Number of Reported Injuries or Fatalities, Including Outliers 

1999 Edition 2002 Edition 2007 Edition 2010 Edition 

Firefighter injuries per 100,000 homes 0.9% 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 

Firefighter fatalities per 100,000 homes 4.5% 6.4% 5.0% 11.6% 

Other injuries per 100,000 homes 0.8% 0.9% 1.1% 0.5% 

Other fatalities per 100,000 homes 1.3% 1.4% 1.1% 1.0% 

NOTE: None of the results is statistically significant at a 95% confidence level when using heteroskedasticity robust 

standard errors (which are necessary due to heteroskedasticity in this data). 

The Importance of State and Year Fixed Effects 

A thoughtful reader might ask why the coefficients in our results are positive, despite the 

scatterplots in Figure B.1 and Figure B.2 appearing to reflect a slightly downward-sloping trend, 

if anything. The answer is that once state and year averages are accounted for, the downwardsloping trend disappears. 

Figure B.3 highlights the importance of accounting for state and year averages (via fixed 

effects included in our second-stage Poisson regression). Figure B.3 compares the number of 

fires and the distribution of severities between states that ever adopt state-wide minimum codes 
77 

Figure B.3. States with Minimum Codes Report More Fires but Have a Similar 

Distribution of Severity 

 

(left) and states that never adopt state-wide minimum codes (right). See Figure 4.2 for a list of 

which states do and do not adopt state-wide minimum codes. The states that never adopt codes 

have slightly fewer fires per 100,000 homes (the distribution of severity is similar); these states 

may choose not to adopt codes in part because they have less need for statewide minimum fire 

safety codes. Thus state fixed effects are important to avoid erroneously concluding that codes 

cause more fires. Second, even though the number of fires per capita had radically decreased 

prior to 2003, there is still a slight decrease over time and notable year-by-year variation in the 

number of fires. Year fixed effects ensure we separate safety improvements experienced by all 

states from safety improvements experienced only by states that adopt updated residential 

building codes. 

We did examine the “intensive margin” analysis of only including states that ever adopt 

codes in the analysis, which effectively excludes many of the observations with x-axis values 

of zero in Figure B.1 and Figure B.2. The coefficients on the proportion of housing built since 

updated residential building codes were enacted were smaller and in some cases negative, but all 

results remained statistically insignificant. State and year fixed effects continue to fully account 

for any visually suggested downward trend. 

 
78 

Appendix C. Spatial Econometric Model Overview 

We use a spatial probit model to better assess the relationship between year built and 

survivability. The probit model accounts for the bounded nature of survivability—that the 

likelihood a house is damaged must fall between 0 percent and 100 percent. And spatial 

methods—namely controlling for the performance of neighboring houses—account for 

unobserved local conditions such as local fire intensity and exposure to potential structure-tostructure ignition. Including the performance of neighboring houses and other controls helps 

ensure that the model does not attribute the effects of omitted geographic variables to the 

house’s age. 

Damage to structures is measured discretely: Either a building is damaged, or it is not 

damaged.58 Techniques such as probit models are often used when the dependent variable 

is discrete. 

We use a model based on Anselin (2003) to incorporate spatial interactions between houses 

into our prediction of whether a house is damaged. Specifically, we identify each house’s five 

nearest neighbors,59 and include the average damage outcome among the five neighboring 

households as a predictor of damage. This measure reflects both the risks imposed by neighboring 

housefires and more generally the shared, unobserved risk factors associated with geography. As 

discussed in Chapter 6, these shared geographic factors could include vegetation, fire intensity, 

and other factors. Accounting for the average, aggregate impact of these unobserved geographic 

factors allows us to more accurately measure the relation between house age and fire damage. 

Figure C.1 shows neighbor relationships as lines connecting each house with its nearest five 

neighbors. For the most part, neighbors are located close together, but the graph shows that some 

isolated houses have neighbors located far away. 

We use a probit model to estimate the probability of damage, with damage predicted using 

binary indicators for the decade in which a house was built, an indicator for whether the home is 

permanent versus manufactured, and measures of “density” (the number of surrounding homes). 

We estimate this probit model in two different ways, each of which has different interpretations 

that bound the overall impact. Our first approach, which we call the “static” model, uses the 

observed damage outcomes of neighboring homes as an independent variable. The second 

 

58 In the DINS data, damage is measured on a discrete scale of four levels of damage. As Figure 4.3 shows, nearly 

all houses were undamaged or destroyed—few houses suffered partial damage. We also explored models that looked 

at different damage cutoffs (e.g., grouping undamaged houses with lower levels of damages, similar to the way that 

Syphard and Keeley [2019] compared lightly damaged houses with heavily damaged houses), but the results were 

similar. 

59 Explorations with other definitions of neighbors resulted in qualitatively similar results. 
79 

Figure C.1. Neighbor Relationships Between Houses 

SOURCE: RAND specification of spatial weights as displayed in GeoDa v. 1.14.0 24, August 2019 

(Center for Spatial Data Science, 2021). 

approach, which we call the “recursive” model, uses the predicted damage outcomes for 

neighboring houses instead of the observed damage outcomes, meaning it must be estimated as 

a simultaneous equation model (because the dependent variable for one observation affects the 

value of an independent variable for another observation). The differences in treatment of damage 

to neighboring homes is discussed in Chapter 6. The other independent variable are discussed in 

further detail below. 

The two models can be expressed as follows: 
80 

Static Model: PሺDAMAGED௜ ൌ 1|Xiሻ ൌ Φሺβ଴ ൅ βଵBUILT1900௜ ൅ βଶBUILT1920௜ ൅

βଷBUILT1930௜ ൅ βସBUILT1940௜ ൅ βହBUILT1950௜ ൅ β଺BUILT1960௜ ൅ β଻BUILT1970௜ ൅

β଼BUILT1980௜ ൅ βଽBUILT1990௜ ൅ βଵ଴BUILT2000௜ ൅ βଵଵBUILT2010௜ ൅ βଵଶPERM௜ ൅

βଵଷDENSITY100௜ ൅ βଵସDENSITY1K௜ ൅ βଵହ ∑ ஽஺ெ஺ீா஽ೕ

ହ ௝ ሻ

Recursive Model: PሺDAMAGED௜ ൌ 1|Xiሻ ൌ Φሺβ଴ ൅ βଵBUILT1900௜ ൅ βଶBUILT1920௜ ൅

βଷBUILT1930௜ ൅ βସBUILT1940௜ ൅ βହBUILT1950௜ ൅ β଺BUILT1960௜ ൅ β଻BUILT1970௜ ൅

β଼BUILT1980௜ ൅ βଽBUILT1990௜ ൅ βଵ଴BUILT2000௜ ൅ βଵଵBUILT2010௜ ൅ βଵଶPERM௜ ൅

βଵଷDENSITY100௜ ൅ βଵସDENSITY1K௜ ൅ βଵହ ∑ ௉ሺୈ୅୑୅ୋ୉ୈೕୀଵ|Xjሻ

ହ ௝ ሻ.

DAMAGED௜ is an indicator variable for whether house i was damaged in the Camp Fire, 

X represents all independent variables in the probit regression, Φሺxሻ is the standard normal 

cumulative distribution function, and j is the five nearest neighbors for house i.

60 The other 

control variables are as described below. 

Year Built 

We grouped houses into the decade they were built (houses built before 1920 are grouped 

together due to a small number of observations for those years). For each house, all variables are 

zero except for the decade in which the house was built, which is 1. For example, a house that is 

built in 1984 has BUILT1980௜ ൌ 1, and all other variables are zero. 

The analysis discussed in Chapter 6 showed that newer homes are on average more survivable. 

Permanent Versus Manufactured Homes 

Homes are either permanent (PERM = 1) or manufactured (PERM = 0). Previous research, 

including research by NIST (Maranghides and McNamara, 2016, pp. 64, 116) has found that 

manufactured homes are more vulnerable to fires igniting underneath the home than permanent 

homes built on a foundation or over an enclosed crawlspace. 

Permanent homes fared better than manufactured homes, with 16 percent of permanent 

homes undamaged versus only 7 percent of manufactured homes. One potential driver for this 

difference, as identified previously by NIST research (Maranghides and McNamara, 2016, 

pp. 64, 116), is construction techniques that allow fires to ignite beneath homes. Permanent 

homes utilizing pier and beam foundations also allow fires to ignite underneath but these 

foundations are relatively uncommon. 

 

60 Mathematically, this is accomplished through use of a spatial weights matrix, W, which identifies which 

observations neighbor each other by assigning the respective weight to give each observation. In the static model, 

this could be written as βଵହW୧DAMAGED୧. The weights matrix, W, is an N × N matrix where N is the number of 

observations. The values for W—i.e., the identification of neighbors and their respective weights—are set external to 

the regression model. 
81 

Density 

We incorporate two measures of density based on a count of the number of houses within a 

certain radius of each house in the dataset. A density metric with a radius of 100 m accounts for 

risks correlated with high levels of density near a house (e.g., automobile-to-structure ignitions). 

A density metric with a radius of 1 km accounts for larger-scale impacts of density (e.g., houses 

in Paradise and Magalia have high numbers of houses within 1 km, while houses in more 

isolated subdivisions, even if dense, have lower numbers of houses within 1 km). 

Table 6.2 shows that undamaged structures were in areas with lower housing density. 

Damaged houses had an average of 8.6 houses located within 100 m, while undamaged houses 

had an average of 4.69 houses located within 100 m. At 1 km, damaged houses had an average 

of 518 houses located within 1 km, while undamaged houses had an average of 327 houses 

located within 1 km.61

Including explicit measures of density is likely not critical to the modeling because density 

is inherently accounted for within the spatial lag variable (since neighbors have very similar 

densities). However, density calculations are relatively straightforward. If density were not 

included separately, the impacts would likely increase the importance of the spatial lag term, 

thereby exaggerating the positive feedback loop. 

 

 

61 One potential limitation of the density variables—especially the 1 km variable—is that they do not account for 

homes outside the fire perimeter, which are not included in the data. Homes near the fire perimeter in Magalia and 

near Chico, where fire lines were held near populated areas, are denser than the variables indicate. 
82 

References 

Aherns, Marty, “False Alarms and Unwanted Activations,” in U.S. Experience with Smoke 

Alarms and Other Fire Detection/Alarm Equipment, Quincy, Mass.: National Fire Protection 

Association, 2004. 

https://getsafealarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/US-EXPERIENCE-WITH-SMOKE 

-ALARMS-AND-OTHER-FIRE-DETECTION-ALARM-EQUIPMENT-NFPA2004.pdf 

———, “Home Smoke Alarms: The Data as Context for Decision,” Fire Technology, Vol. 44, 

No. 4, 2008, pp. 313–327. 

———, “Smoke Alarm Presence and Performance in US Home Fires,” Fire Technology, Vol. 47, 

No. 3, 2011, pp. 699–720. 

———, Smoke Alarms in US Home Fires, Quincy, Mass.: National Fire Protection Association, 

2021. As of April 22, 2021: 

https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/Detection 

-and-signaling/ossmokealarms.pdf 

American National Standards Institute, “ANSI’s Roles,” webpage, undated. As of March 26, 2021: 

https://www.ansi.org/about/roles 

Anselin, Luc, “Spatial Econometrics,” in Badi H. Baltagi, ed., A Companion to Theoretical 

Econometrics, Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2003, pp. 310–330. 

ANSI—See American National Standards Institute. 

ArcGIS REST Services Directory, “Camp_No_Damage_Public_View (FeatureServer),” 

webpage, undated a. As of April 19, 2021: 

https://services1.arcgis.com/jUJYIo9tSA7EHvfZ/ArcGIS/rest/services/Camp_No_Damage 

_Public_View/FeatureServer 

———, “Camp_Perimeter_1119 (FeatureServer),” webpage, undated b. As of January 16, 2020: 

https://services1.arcgis.com/jUJYIo9tSA7EHvfZ/ArcGIS/rest/services/Camp_Perimeter 

_1119/FeatureServer 

———, “Camp2018_DINS_Public_View_Pictures (FeatureServer),” webpage, undated c. As of 

April 19, 2021: 

https://services1.arcgis.com/jUJYIo9tSA7EHvfZ/ArcGIS/rest/services/Camp2018_DINS 

_Public_View_Pictures/FeatureServer 

ASTM International, “ASTM E108 – 17 Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Roof 

Coverings,” webpage, undated a. As of November 1, 2019: 

https://www.astm.org/Standards/E108.htm 
83 

———, “ASTM E119 – 19 Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and 

Materials,” webpage, undated b. As of November 1, 2019: 

https://www.astm.org/Standards/E119 

———, “ASTM E1354 – 17 Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates 

for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter,” webpage, undated c. 

As of November 1, 2019: 

https://www.astm.org/Standards/E1354 

———, “ASTM E2632/E2632M-13 Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Under-Deck Fire 

Test Response of Deck Materials,” webpage, undated d. As of November 1, 2019: 

https://www.astm.org/Standards/E2632 

———, “ASTM E2886/E2886M-14 Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Ability of Exterior 

Vents to Resist the Entry of Embers and Direct Flame Impingement,” webpage, undated e. 

As of November 1, 2019: 

https://www.astm.org/Standards/E2886 

———, “ASTM WK23700 New Test Method for Evaluating Roof Field Vent Response to Wind 

Blown Flame and Burning Ember Exposure,” webpage, undated f. As of November 1, 2019: 

https://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/WORKITEMS/WK23700.htm 

———, “ASTM WK42159 New Test Method for Flammability and Resistance of Eaves and 

Horizontal Projections to Fire Penetration Multilevel,” webpage, undated g. As of November 1, 

2019: 

https://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/WORKITEMS/WK42159.htm 

———, “ASTM WK63252 New Test Method for Determination of Charring Depth of Wood 

Utility Poles Exposed to Simulated Wildland Fires,” webpage, undated h. As of November 1, 

2019: 

https://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/WORKITEMS/WK63252.htm 

———, “ASTM WK59635 New Test Method for Determining Flammability of Exterior Wall 

Assemblies for Multi-Story Structures,” webpage, undated i. As of November 1, 2019: 

https://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/WORKITEMS/WK59635.htm 

———, “The History of ASTM International,” webpage, undated j. As of March 25, 2021: 

https://www.astm.org/ABOUT/history_book.html 

Ballesteros, Michael F., and Marcie-Jo Kresnow, “Prevalence of Residential Smoke Alarms 

and Fire Escape Plans in the US: Results from the Second Injury Control and Risk Survey 

(ICARIS-2),” Public Health Reports, Vol. 122, No. 2, 2007, pp. 224–231. 

Barrow G. J., “A Survey of Houses Affected in the Beaumaris Fire, January 14, 1944,” Journal 

of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1945.
84 

Bright, Richard, “Recent Advances in Residential Smoke Detection,” Fire Journal, Vol. 68, 

No. 6, November 1974, pp. 69–77. 

Bukowski, Richard W., A History of NBS/NIST Research on Fire Detectors, in Proceedings of 

the 12th International Conference on Automatic Fire Detection, Gaithersburg, Md.: National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, SP 965, 2001. As of September 24, 2021: 

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication965.pdf 

Bukowski, Richard W., Richard D. Peacock, Jason D. Averill, Thomas G. Cleary, Nelson P. 

Bryner, William D. Walton, Paul A. Reneke, and Erica D. Kuligowski, Performance of 

Home Smoke Alarms: Analysis of the Response of Several Available Technologies in 

Residential Fire Settings, Gaithersburg, Md.: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

1455-1, 2008. As of April 2021: 

https://www.nist.gov/publications/performance-home-smoke-alarms-analysis-response 

-several-available-technologies

Bukowski, Richard W., Thomas E. Waterman, and W. J. Christian, Detector Sensitivity and 

Siting Requirements for Dwellings, Gaithersburg, Md.: National Bureau of Standards, GCR 

75-51, 1975. As of March 26, 2021: 

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/04/28/NISTGCR_75_51.pdf 

Butry, David T., and Douglas S. Thomas, Evaluating Potential Bias in Non-Randomly Reported 

Fire Incident Data, Gaithersburg, Md.: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

Technical Note 1770, 2012. 

Butte County, Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, May 2013. As of April 14, 

2020: 

https://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/19/LHMP/Butte_County_LHMP_Update_Annex_E 

_Town_of_Paradise.pdf 

———, Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, October 2019. As of April 14, 2020: 

https://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/19/LHMP/2019/Annexes/AnnexETownofParadise.pdf? 

ver=2019-11-13-123908-010 

CAL FIRE—See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

California Building Standards Commission, “Chapter 49 Requirements for Wildland-Urban 

Interface Fire Areas,” in California Fire Code 2016, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 

Part 9, July 2016. As of August 26, 2019: 

https://up.codes/viewer/california/ca-fire-code-2016/chapter/49/requirements-for-wildland 

-urban-interface-fire-areas#49 

 
85 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, “Camp Fire Structure Status,” webpage, 

undated a. As of March 20, 2020: 

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5306cc8cf38c4252830a38d467d

33728 

———, “Defensible Space/PRC 4291,” webpage, undated b. As of April 29, 2021: 

https://www.fire.ca.gov/programs/communications/defensible-space-prc-4291/ 

———, Fire Research and Assessment Programs, “FHSZ Viewer,” webpage, undated c. As of 

April 22, 2021: 

http://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ 

———, Fire Research and Assessment Programs, “Fire Perimeters,” webpage, undated d. As of 

April 22, 2021: 

https://frap.fire.ca.gov/frap-projects/fire-perimeters/ 

California Department of Housing and Community Development, Manufactured Housing 

Regulations, Title 25, Chapter 3, Subchapter 2, October 22, 2012. As of May 22, 2020: 

https://hcd.ca.gov/building-standards/state-housing-law/wildland-urban-interface/docs 

/MH_Regs_Article2-3(10-12).pdf 

CDC—See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Center for Spatial Data Science, “GeoDa: An Introduction to Spatial Data Analysis,” webpage, 

University of Chicago, 2021. As of September 23, 2021: 

https://spatial.uchicago.edu/geoda 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Prevalence of Smoke Detectors in Private 

Residences—DeKalb County, Georgia, 1985,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly, Report 35, 

No. 28, 1986, pp. 445–448. 

C.F.R.—See Code of Federal Regulations.

Cleary, Thomas G., Improving Smoke Alarm Performance – Justification for New Smoldering 

and Flaming Test Performance Criteria, NIST Technical Note 1837, Gaithersburg, Md.: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, July 2014. As of April 18, 2021: 

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/TechnicalNotes/NIST.TN.1837.pdf 

———, A Study on the Performance of Current Smoke Alarms to the New Fire and Nuisance 

Tests Prescribed in ANSI/UL 217-2015, Gaithersburg, Md.: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Technical Note 1947, 2016. 

Cleary, Thomas G., and Artur Chernovsky, Smoke Alarm Performance in Kitchen Fires and 

Nuisance Alarm Scenarios, Gaithersburg, Md.: National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, Technical Note 1784, 2013. 
86 

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 24, Part 3280, Manufactured Home Construction and Safety 

Standards. 

Cohen, Jack D., “Reducing the Wildland Fire Threat to Homes: Where and How Much?” in 

Armando González-Cabán and Philip N. Omi, eds., Proceedings of the Symposium on Fire 

Economics, Planning, and Policy: Bottom Lines, April 5–9, 1999, San Diego, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, PSW-GTR-173, pp. 189–195. 

Curwen, Thomas, and Joseph Serna, “The Camp Fire Burned Homes but Left Trees Standing. 

The Science Behind the Fire’s Path,” Los Angeles Times, November 2, 2018. As of February 

18, 2020: 

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-camp-fire-lessons-20181120-story.html 

Czajkowski, Jeffrey, Kevin M. Simmons, and James M. Done, “Demonstrating the Intensive 

Benefit to the Local Implementation of a Statewide Building Code,” Risk Management and 

Insurance Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, 2017, pp. 363–390. 

Dillon, Gregory K., Wildfire Hazard Potential (WHP) for the Conterminous United States 

(270-m GRID), Version 2018 Classified, 2nd ed., Fort Collins, CO: Forest Service Research 

Data Archive, 2018. 

https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS-2015-0046-2 

Done, James M., Kevin M. Simmons, and Jeffrey Czajkowski, “Relationship Between Residential 

Losses and Hurricane Winds: Role of the Florida Building Code,” ASCE-ASME Journal of 

Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 1, 

2018, 04018001. 

Dwyer, Jody, “The ISO Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule,” University of Tennessee, 

Knoxville: Municipal Technical Advisory Service, October 9, 2012. As of April 14, 2020: 

http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_mtaspubs/163 

Elias, Paul, “California Wildfire Costs Soaring Past Last Year’s Records,” Associated Press, 

December 12, 2018. As of May 28, 2020: 

https://www.mynspr.org/post/california-wildfires-costs-soaring-past-last-years-records 

Evarts, Ben, and Gary P. Stein, “US Fire Department Profile—2018, Supporting Tables,” 

Quincy, Mass.: National Fire Protection Association, February 2020. As of April 22, 2021: 

https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/ 

Emergency-responders/osfdprofile.pdf and https://www.nfpa.org//-/media/Files/News-and 

-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/Emergency-responders/osFDProfileTables.pdf 

Foote, Joseph, “As They Saw It: HUD’s Secretaries Reminisce About Carrying Out the Mission,” 

Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, Vol. 1, No. 3, September 1995, 

pp. 71–92. As of September 23, 2021: 

https://www.huduser.gov/Periodicals/CITYSCPE/VOL1NUM3/foote.pdf
87 

Gilbert, Stanley W., “Estimating Smoke Detector Effectiveness and Utilization in Homes,” 

Gaithersburg, Md.: National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Technical Note

2020, 2018. As of April , 2021: 

https://www.nist.gov/publications/estimating-smoke-detector-effectiveness-and-utilization 

-homes 

Gollner, Michael J., Raquel Hakes, Sara Caton, and Kyle Kohler, Pathways for Building Fire 

Spread at the Wildland Urban Interface, Quincy, Mass.: Fire Protection Research 

Foundation, March 2015. 

Gross, Daniel, “Fire Research at NBS: The First 75 Years,” in Gregory Cox and Brian 

Langford, eds., Fire Safety Science—Proceedings of the Third International Symposium, 

London: Routledge, 1991, pp. 119–133. 

Hamins Anthony, Jason Averill, Nelson Bryner, Richard Gann, David Butry, Rick Davis, Francine 

Amon, Jeffrey Gilman, Alexander Maranghides, William Mell, Daniel Madrzykowski, Samuel 

Manzello, Jiann Yang, and Matthew Bundy, Reducing the Risk of Fire in Buildings and 

Communities: A Strategic Roadmap to Guide and Prioritize Research, Gaithersburg, Md.: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Special Publication 1130, 2012. 

Harpe S. W., Thomas E, Waterman, and W. J. Christian, Detector Sensitivity and Siting 

Requirements for Dwellings, Phase 2, Gaithersburg, Md.: National Bureau of Standards, 

GCR 77-82, 1977. 

Henning, Andrew, Jonathan Cox, and David Shew, “CAL FIRE’s Damage Inspection 

Program—Its Evolution and Implementation,” presentation at the National Fire Protection 

Association Conference and Expo, Las Vegas, Nev., June 13–16, 2016. As of March 20, 2020: 

http://www.fltwood.com/perm/nfpa-2016/scripts/sessions/M26.html

IBHS—See Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety® or Institute for Business & Home 

Safety®

ICC—See International Code Council. 

Institute for Business & Home Safety®, Hurricane Ike: Nature’s Force vs. Structural Strength, 

September 2009. As of April 22, 2021: 

https://ibhs.org/wp-content/uploads/wpmembers/files/Hurricane-Ike-Natures-Force-vs 

-Structural-Strength_IBHS.pdf 

———, Hurricane Charley: Nature’s Force vs. Structural Strength—Executive Summary, 

August 2014. As of April 22, 2021: 

https://ibhs.org/wp-content/uploads/wpmembers/files/Hurricane-Charley-Natures-Force-vs 

-Structural-Strength-Executive-Summary_IBHS.pdf 
88 

Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety®, “Post-Hurricane Investigations,” webpage, 

undated a. As of April 22, 2021: 

https://ibhs.org/wind/post-hurricane-investigations/ 

———, Rating the States: 2018, Atlantic and Gulf Coast States, March 2018. As of April 18, 

2021: 

https://ibhs.org/wp-content/uploads/wpmembers/files/Rating-the-States-2018_IBHS.pdf 

Insurance Services Office, Inc., “BCEGS 2005-2015 Trends,” webpage, undated. As of April 14, 

2020: 

https://www.isomitigation.com/bcegs/bcegs-trends 

International Code Council, “Committee Interpretations,” webpage, undated a. As of August 26, 

2019: 

https://www.iccsafe.org/products-and-services/technical-opinions/committee-interpretations/ 

———, “I-Code Development Consensus Committees,” webpage, undated b. As of August 26, 

2019: 

https://www.iccsafe.org/membership/i-code-development-consensus-committees/ 

———, “International Codes—Adoption by State,” webpage, undated c. As of February 22, 2021: 

https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/Master-I-Code-Adoption-Chart-OCT-2021 

-v2.pdf 

———, 2015 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Country Club Hills, Ill., May 30, 

2014. 

———, “2016–2017 FCIC Code Interpretation Committee,” webpage, January 2016. As of 

August 2, 2021: 

http://media.iccsafe.org/apps/2017/CSC/rosters/FCIC.pdf 

———, “2018–2020 FCIC Code Interpretation Committee,” webpage, October 2018. As of 

July 1, 2020: 

https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/com_coun/roster_FCIC.pdf 

———, “International Code Council: Code Adoption Map,” Country Club Hills, Ill., December 19, 

2019. As of November 1, 2019: 

https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/Code_Adoption_Maps.pdf 

———, “2020–2022 Fire Code Action Committee Roster,” webpage, April 2020. As of July 2, 

2020: 

https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/fcac/2020-22-FCAC-Website-Roster.pdf 

ISO—See International Standards Organization 
89 

Jeffery, Tom, Shelly Yerkes, Denise Moore, Frances Calgiano, and Rhea Turakhia, 2019 

Wildfire Risk Report, CoreLogic, September 12, 2019. As of May 28, 2020: 

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/cb987be2818a4013a66977b6b3900444 

Kasler, Dale, and Phillip Reese, “‘The Weakest Link’: Why Your House May Burn While Your 

Neighbor’s Survives the Next Wildfire,” Sacramento Bee, April 11, 2019. As of December 

12, 2019: 

https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article227665284.html 

Kolden, Crystal A., and Peter J. Weisberg, “Assessing Accuracy of Manually-Mapped Wildfire 

Perimeters in Topographically Dissected Areas,” Fire Ecology Special Issue, Vol. 3, No. 1, 

2007, pp. 22–31. 

Leonard, J., and N. A. McArthur, “A History of Research into Building Performance in Australian 

Bushfires,” in CSIRO, Building, Construction and Engineering, eds., Bushfire ’99: Proceedings, 

Australian Bushfire Conference, July 7–9, 1999, Albury, N.S.W., pp. 219–225. 

Löw, Petra, “The Natural Disaster of 2018 in Figures: Losses in 2018 Dominated by Wildfires 

and Tropical Storms,” Munich RE, August 8, 2019. As of April 17, 2020: 

https://www.munichre.com/topics-online/en/climate-change-and-natural-disasters/natural 

-disasters/the-natural-disasters-of-2018-in-figures.html 

Mackay, Donald R., ed., A Glossary of Standards-Related Terminology, Gaithersburg, Md.: U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NISTIR 89-4194, October 1989. As of October 7, 2020: 

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/nistir_89-4194.pdf 

———, “Enabling the Investigation of Structure Vulnerabilities to Wind-Driven Firebrand 

Showers in Wildland-Urban i=Interface (WUI) Fires,” Fire Safety Science, Vol. 11, 2014, 

pp, 83–96. 

Manzello, Samuel L., Kathleen Almand, Eric Guillaume, Stéphanie Vallerent, Stéphane 

Hameury, and Tuula Hakkaraeinen, “The Growing Global Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) 

Fire Dilemma: Priority Needs for Research,” Fire Safety Journal, Vol. 100, 2018, pp. 64–66. 

Manzello, Samuel L., Thomas G. Cleary, and Jiann C. Yang, “Urban/Wildland Fires: Ignition by 

Embers,” Gaithersburg, Md.: National Institute of Standards and Technology, INTERFLAM 

2004, pp. 557–562. 

Maranghides, Alexander, and Erik L. Johnsson, Residential Structure Separation Fire 

Experiments, Gaithersburg, Md.: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technical 

Note 1600, August 2008. 

 
90 

Maranghides, Alexander, Eric Link, William “Ruddy” Mell, Steven Hawks, Mike Wilson, Will 

Brewer, Chris Brown, Bob Vihnaneck, and William D. Walton, A Case Study of the Camp 

Fire—Fire Progression Timeline, Gaithersburg, Md.: National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, Technical Note 2135, January 2021a. As of April 22, 2021: 

https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.2135 

Maranghides, Alexander, and Derek McNamara, 2011 Wildland Urban Interface Amarillo Fires 

Report #2—Assessment of Fire Behavior and WUI Measurement Science, Gaithersburg, Md.: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technical Note 1909, February 2016. 

Maranghides, Alexander, Derek McNamara, William Mell, Jason Trook, and Blaza Toman, A 

Case Study of a Community Affected by the Witch and Guejito Fires: Report #2 – Evaluating 

the Effects of Hazard Mitigation Actions on Structure Ignitions, Gaithersburg, Md.: National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, Technical Note 1796, May 2013. 

Maranghides, Alexander, Derek McNamara, Robert Vihnanek, Joseph Restaino, and Carrie 

Leland, A Case Study of a Community Affected by the Waldo Fire—Event Timeline and 

Defensive Actions, Gaithersburg, Md.: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

Technical Note 1910, November 2015. 

Maranghides, Alexander, and William Mell, Framework for Addressing the National Wildland 

Urban Interface Fire Problem—Determining Fire and Ember Exposure Zones Using a WUI 

Hazard Scale, Gaithersburg, Md.: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technical 

Note 1748, January 14, 2013. 

Maranghides, Alexander, William Mell, Karen Ridenour, and Derek McNamara, Initial 

Reconnaissance of the 2011 Wildland-Urban Interface Fires in Amarillo, Texas, 

Gaithersburg, Md.: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technical Note 1708, 

July 2011. As of March 27, 2021: 

https://www.nist.gov/publications/initial-reconnaissance-2011-wildland-urban-interfaces 

-fires-amarillo-texas 

Maranghides, Alexander, Shonoli Nazare, et al., Structure Separation Experiments Phase 1 

Preliminary Test Plan, Gaithersburg, Md.: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

NIST Technical Note 2161, 2021b. As of September 22, 2021: 

https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.2161 

McGuire, J. H., and Ruscoe B. E. The Value of a Fire Detector in the Home, National Research 

Council of Canada, Fire Study No. 9 of the Division of Building Research, Ottawa, Canada, 

1962. 

Miller, Benjamin M., Frank Camm, Marjory S. Blumenthal, Jesse Lastunen, and Kenneth W. 

Miller, Inching Toward Reform: Trump’s Deregulation and Its Implementation, Santa 

Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, PE-241-RC, 2017. As of September 14, 2021: 

https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE241.html 
91 

Mitigation Framework Leadership Group, Implementation Guidelines for Executive Order 

13,728 Wildland-Urban Interface Federal Risk Management, Emmitsburg, Md.: U.S. Fire 

Administration, January 2017. As of October 31, 2019: 

https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/eo13728_guidelines.pdf 

National Fire Protection Association, CodeFinderTM, webpage, undated a. As of December 6, 

2019: 

https://codefinder.nfpa.org/ 

———, “NFPA 295: Standard for Wildfire Control,” Quincy, Mass., undated b. As of October 

31, 2019: 

https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and 

-standards/detail?code=295 

———, “NFPA 1140: Standards for Wildland Fire Safety,” Quincy, Mass., undated c. As of 

October 31, 2019: 

https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and 

-standards/detail?code=1140 

———, “Wildfire Codes and Standards,” webpage, undated d. As of July 1, 2020: 

https://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/Fire-causes-and-risks/Wildfire/Codes-and-standards 

#:~:text=Wildland%20Fire%20Technical%20Committees&text=An%20NFPA%20Technical

%20Committee%20serves,from%20a%20Technical%20Committee%20project 

———, Task Group on Smoke Detection Technology, Minimum Performance Requirements for 

Smoke Alarm Detection Technology, Quincy, Mass., 2008. 

———, Task Group on Smoke Detection Follow-Up, Task Group on Smoke Detection 

Follow-Up Report: Subtask Group 1—Task Group on Smoke Alarm Installation Strategy, 

Subtask Group 2—Task Group on Performance Follow-Up, Quincy, Mass., 2009. 

https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/ 

Detection-and-signaling/Task-Group-on-Smoke-Detection-Followup-Final-Report-July 

-2009.ashx?la=en 

———, “NFPA 1141: Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Development in 

Wildland, Rural, and Suburban Areas,” Quincy, Mass., 2017a. As of October 31, 2019: 

https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and 

-standards/detail?code=1141 

———, “NFPA 1143 Standard for Wildland Fire Management, 2018 Edition,” Quincy, Mass., 

2017b, p. 1143-1. 

———, “NFPA 1144 Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire, 

2018,” Quincy, Ma., 2017c, p. 1144-1. 
92 

———, “NFPA 72®: National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code®,” September 2019a. As of 

April 18, 2021: 

https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and 

-standards/detail?code=72 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, “NIST Timeline,” webpage, undated. As of 

March 25, 2021: 

https://www.nist.gov/timelinelist 

———, “The Founding: Overview,” webpage, March 8, 2017a. As of March 25, 2021: 

https://www.nist.gov/history/nist-100-foundations-progress/founding-overview 

———, “WUI Building and Fire Codes and Standards Project,” webpage, July 19, 2017b. As of 

August 26, 2019: 

https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/wui-building-and-fire-codes-and-standards-project 

———, “WUI Fire Exposure Data Collection and Modeling Project,” February 28, 2018a. As of 

August 26, 2019: 

https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/wui-fire-exposure-data-collection-and-modeling 

-project 

———, “Summary of Impact Study Results,” June 2018b. As of March 26, 2021: 

https://www.nist.gov/tpo/summary-nist-impact-study-results 

———, “Fire Risk Reduction in Communities Program,” webpage, updated July 12, 2021. As of 

August 26, 2019: 

https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/fire-risk-reduction-communities-program 

———, “NIST General Information,” webpage, February 1, 2021. As of March 25, 2021: 

https://www.nist.gov/director/pao/nist-general-information 

Natural Hazards Center, Natural Hazards Observer, Vol. 20, , No. 6, July 1996. As of 

November 1, 2019: 

https://hazards.colorado.edu/archive/o/archives/1996/july96/july96.html 

NFPA—See National Fire Protection Association. 

NIST—See National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

Obama, Barack, Wildland-Urban Interface Federal Risk Mitigation, Executive Order 13,728, 

Washington, D.C.: White House, May 18, 2016. 

Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-119, “Revision of OMB Circular No. A-119, 

“Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in 

the Conformity Assessment Activities,” Washington, D.C., 2016. 
93 

Office of the State Fire Marshal, “Recommended and Remaining Draft Local Responsibility 

Area (Including Cities and Other Local Agencies) Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps and 

Adopted State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps,” webpage, undated. 

As of March 26, 2020: 

https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildland-hazards-building 

-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/ 

OMB—See Office of Management and Budget. 

Quarles, Stephen L., and Kelly Pohl, Building a Wildfire-Resistant Home: Codes and Costs, 

Bozeman, MT: Headwaters Economics, November 2018. 

Quarles, Steve, and Faith Kearns, “New California Wildland-Urban Interface Building Code 

Training,” Center for Fire Research and Outreach Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 1, Fall 2007. 

As of November 1, 2019: 

https://ucanr.edu/sites/cfro/files/167775.pdf 

Ramsay, G. C., N. A. McArthur, and V. P. Dowling, “Preliminary Results from an Examination 

of House Survival in the 16 February 1983 Bushfires in Australia,” Fire and Materials, 

Vol. 11, 1987, pp. 49–51. 

Rasker, Ray, The Wildland-Urban Interface: The Problem, Trends & Solutions, Bozeman, MT: 

Headwaters Economics, August 31, 2018. As of August 27, 2019: 

https://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/wildfire_homes_solutions 

_presentation.pdf 

Reckner, Jack V., Controversy and Change in the Fire Code Adoption Process, Jeffersontown, 

Ky.: Jeffersontown Fire Protection District, June 1999. As of November 1, 2019: 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.624.4282&rep=rep1&type=pdf 

Rohde, David, Jonathan Corcoran, Michelle Sydes, and Angela Higginson, “The Association 

Between Smoke Alarm Presence and Injury and Death Rates: A Systematic Review and 

Meta-Analysis,” Fire Safety Journal, Vol. 81, 2016, pp. 58-63. 

Rocchio, Laura E. P., “The Synoptic View of California’s Camp Fire: A Scorching Reality of 

Today’s Fires,” Greenbelt, Md.: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, February 19, 2019. 

As of May 27, 2020: 

https://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/the-synoptic-view-of-californias-camp-fire-a-scorching-reality 

-of-todays-fires/ 

Runyan, Carol W., Shrikant I. Bangdiwala, Mary A. Linzer, Jeffrey J. Sacks, and John Butts, 

“Risk Factors for Fatal Residential Fires.” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 327, 

No. 12, 1992, pp. 859–863. 
94 

Schepel, Harm, The Constitution of Private Governance: Product Standards in the Regulation of 

Integrating Markets, Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing, 2005. 

Simmons, Kevin M., Jeffrey Czajkowski, and James M. Done, “Economic Effectiveness of 

Implementing a Statewide Building Code: The Case of Florida,” Land Economics, Vol. 94, 

No. 2, 2018, pp. 155–174. 

Spence, James C., Walter G. Wells, and D. F. Boring, Fire Protection Through Modern Building 

Codes, 5th ed., Washington, D.C.: American Iron and Steel Institute, 1981. 

Staats, Elmer B., Operation Breakthrough—Lessons Learned About Demonstrating New 

Technology, Report to the Congress by Comptroller General of the United States, 

Washington, D.C.: Government Accountability Office, PSAD-76-173, 1976. 

https://www.gao.gov/assets/120/117465.pdf 

Standohar-Alfano, Christine D., Heather Estes, Tim Johnston, Murray J. Morrison, and Tanya M. 

Brown-Giammanco. “Reducing Losses From Wind-Related Natural Perils: Research at the 

IBHS Research Center.” Frontiers in Built Environment, Vol. 3, 2017, p. 9. 

State Fire Marshal, “Chapter 7A: Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire 

Exposure,” in 2007 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, 

Part 2, Volume 1 of 2, Sacramento, Calif.: California Building Standards Commission, 2007. 

Syphard, Alexandra D., Teresa J. Brennan, and Jon E. Keeley, “The Role of Defensible Space 

for Residential Structure Protection During Wildfires,” International Journal of Wildland 

Fire, Vol. 23, 2014, pp. 1165–1175. 

Syphard, Alexandra D., and Jon E. Keeley, “Factors Associated with Structure Loss in the 

2013–2018 California Wildfires,” Fire, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2019, article number 49. 

Syphard, Alexandra D., Jon E. Keeley, Avi Bar Massada, Teresa J. Brennan, and Volker C. 

Radeloff, “Housing Arrangement and Location Determine the Likelihood of Housing Loss 

Due to Wildfire,” PLoS ONE, Vol. 7, No. 3, March 2012. 

Tassey, Gregory, “Lessons Learned About the Methodology of Economic Impact Studies: The 

NIST Experience,” Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 22, 1999, pp. 113–119. 

Thomas, Douglas S., and David T. Butry. “Wildland Fires Within Municipal Jurisdictions,” 

Journal of Forestry, Vol. 110, No. 1, 2012, pp. 34–41. 

Thomure, Dale, “ISO’s Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS®),” ISO 

Mitigation, undated. As of March 27, 2021: 

https://www.isomitigation.com/bcegs/ 

U.S.C.—See U.S. Code.
95 

U.S. Census Bureau, “National, State, and County Housing Unit Totals: 2010–2019,” webpage, 

undated a. As of April 22, 2021: 

https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-total-housing 

-units.html 

———, “Housing Units Intercensal Datasets, 2000–2010,” webpage, undated b. As of April 22, 

2021: 

https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/intercensal-2000-2010 

-housing-units.html 

U.S. Code, Title 42, Chapter 70, Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards, 

December 27. 

USFA—See U.S. Fire Administration. 

U.S. Fire Administration, “National Fire Department Registry Summary,” 2020. As of April 22, 

2021: 

https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/registry_summary_2020.pdf 

Vaughan, Ellen, and Jim Turner, The Value and Impact of Building Codes, Washington, D.C.: 

Environmental and Energy Study Institute, September 30, 2013. As of May 22, 2020: 

https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/the-value-and-impact-of-building-codes 

Wright, Richard N., Building and Fire Research at NBS/NIST 1975–2000, Gaithersburg, Md.: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST BSS 179, 2003. As of September 23, 

2021: 

https://www.nist.gov/publications/building-and-fire-research-nbsnist-1975-2000