Ginevra Tanto, Junior Researcher G.E.O.
Abstract
The January 2025 California wildfires drew particular attention to this type of extreme climate events, especially after a lot of celebrities lost their homes. Nonetheless, in regions such as California, the increasing recurrence of wildfires is becoming ever more evident, posing serious threats to both the physical and psychological well-being of its residents. The article seeks to understand whether and how repetitiveness of these calamities could foster climate resilience across social, institutional, and ecological systems.
Introduction
In January 2025, California experienced a series of devastating wildfires. Yet, this is just one example of what occurs with a growing regularity in this region. As a matter of fact, over the past few decades, California has become emblematic of recurring environmental crises, particularly frequent and intense wildfires. These events, while destructive, have also triggered shifts in how communities, institutions, and local ecosystems respond to climate-related threats.
As reported by the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report, the psychological well-being of individuals is shaped by increasing temperatures, extreme events, and reduction of livelihoods and culture. In California, the repeated experience of loss, whether of estates, routines, or familiar landscapes, has deepened the social and emotional impact of climate disruptions, pointing out the urgency for resilience strategies that also address mental health and community awareness.
In this regard, California wildfires increasingly reveal the social dimensions of climate risk and resilience. This article explores how repeated exposure to such crises has prompted new forms of adaptation, suggesting that resilience is not a fixed state, but an evolving process shaped by collective experience and systemic transformation.
Repetition of crises: the Californian wildfires context
Over the past few decades, Californians have witnessed a marked increase in both the frequency and severity of wildfires, resulting from a combination of climate change, historical land-use decisions, and entrenched fire management practices. While this element has long played a natural role in many of the region’s ecosystems, current fire regimes have been fundamentally altered. Rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, altered wind patterns, and shifting precipitation, all linked to anthropogenic impact and climate change, have intensified fuel aridity, extended fire seasons, and created conditions for more destructive and less predictable events, as outlined in the U.S. Forest Service’s 2021 strategy document Confronting the Wildfire Crisis.
However, climate alterations alone cannot fully account for this crisis. The widespread suppression of fire throughout the 20th century, once seen as protective, has allowed flammable vegetation to accumulate across fire-adapted landscapes (Kolden, 2019). This has been further exacerbated by rapid urban expansion into the wildland-urban interface (WUI), where human settlements increasingly intersect with highly flammable terrain (Calkin et al., 2014).
The interplay of these drivers has revealed the inadequacy of past strategies that prioritized reactive fire suppression over long-term and adaptive approaches. Moritz et al. (2014) argue that this legacy of control-oriented strategies ignored the ecological necessity of fire and created a self-reinforcing feedback loop: by suppressing wildfires, land managers unintentionally increased the fuel load, setting the stage for even more catastrophic future events. Furthermore, institutional rigidity and fragmented land management structures have limited the capacity to respond flexibly to escalating risks (Calkin et al., 2014).
Recognizing these deficiencies, the Forest Service’s 2021 strategy acknowledges that wildfire is no longer an exceptional or seasonal threat, but a systemic and ongoing crisis that requires transformative governance. The strategy calls for a shift from suppression to proactive, landscape-scale resilience, not only emphasizing techniques such as prescribed burning and forest restoration, but also inclusive, cross-jurisdictional collaboration, particularly with Indigenous fire stewardship practices.
This evolving institutional perspective is supported by a growing body of interdisciplinary research that reconceptualises resilience as more than just ecological robustness. Moritz et al. (2014) frame wildfires as ecological inevitabilities in Mediterranean-type climates like California’s, and advocate for coexistence with fire through ecosystem-based management, public education, and spatial planning. Calkin et al. (2014) highlight that human perceptions of risk and institutional decision-making processes deeply shape wildfire outcomes, suggesting that resilience must also entail cultural and organizational transformation. Meerow et al. (2016) offer a complementary urban resilience framework, defining resilience as a system’s ability to adapt and reorganize in the face of disruption, emphasizing that resilience strategies must be inclusive, context-specific, and socially just.
In this light, the Forest Service’s recent strategic turn is not merely a technical adjustment, but part of a broader institutional learning process spurred by reiterated crisis. Repeated fire disasters, particularly in California, have functioned as disruptive feedback loops that expose underlying vulnerabilities and demand systemic adaptation. Rather than treating wildfires as isolated emergencies, this new paradigm acknowledges them as long-term challenges that require participatory governance, historical memory, and collective resilience. As these events continue to reshape California’s physical, social, and institutional landscapes, frameworks that integrate local knowledge, equity, and long-range planning will be essential for building enduring climate resilience.
Impacts on communities: vulnerability and psychological toll
Therefore, events such as reiterated wildfires, exacerbated by climate change and anthropogenic actions, have profound impact on human health and well-being. According to the Statewide Summary Report of the California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment (2018), the region has witnessed increasingly severe environmental changes in the last decade, with certain social groups, such as outdoor workers, elderly individuals, and low-income and indigenous communities, becoming disproportionately vulnerable. The report highlights the growing physical health risks associated with extreme events like heat waves and wildfires, including respiratory illnesses, heat-related stress, and increased cardiovascular problems.
Nevertheless, most studies tend to emphasise these bodily consequences while underrepresenting the psychological consequences that often accompany them. To quote again the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC (2021-2023), there is high confidence that, in some regions, mental health conditions, such as anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress, are more and more linked to climate-induced stressors like extreme events and prolonged heat exposure.
In their scoping review The mental health and well‑being effects of wildfire smoke (2022), Eisenman and Galway seek to point out how the literature on climate and health has evolved between 2004 and 2022, gradually shifting from a primary focus on physical aftermaths to a broader understanding that includes psychological and emotional repercussions. The authors emphasise that mental health is not only affected by direct exposure to disasters, but also by anticipation of future risks, the loss of place and cultural identity, and the disruption of social networks.
Empirical studies support this broader understanding. In their 2023 article Psychotropic Medication Prescriptions and Large California Wildfires, Wettstein and Vaidyanathan found a measurable increase in prescriptions for antidepressants, anxiolytics, and other psychotropic medications in the aftermath of large-scale wildfires, particularly in the counties most affected by smoke and evacuation orders. This suggests that population-level mental distress follows such disasters and may persist well beyond the immediate aftermath.
Furthermore, in Long-term Impacts of Bush/Wildfires on Mental Health (2022), Palinkas calls attention to the cumulative nature of wildfire-related trauma, noting that repeated exposure can lead to chronic stress, long-term psychiatric symptoms, and diminished community cohesion. Palinkas highlights the importance of preparing mental health systems for recurring fire seasons, advocating for proactive interventions such as community-based trauma services, early screening, and culturally sensitive outreach.
In the context of California, where wildfires are not exceptional phenomena, it is essential that climate resilience strategies fully integrate mental health care and social equity. Addressing the psychological toll of environmental crises is not secondary, but central to building adaptive, inclusive, and durable responses to a changing climate. California’s evolving wildfire governance, marked by inter-agency collaboration and local participation, reflects this broader redefinition.
Fostering Resilience: Adaptation Through Repetition
The repetition of wildfires in California has catalysed a transformation in how resilience is understood and practiced. This reconceptualisation reframes resilience not as a return to a previous stable state, but as a progressing, adaptive process shaped by community experience and a systematic change (Meerow et al., 2016). Each fire season functions not only as a test of preparedness, but as a moment of institutional learning and social reconfiguration.
This development has led to initiatives such as fire-adapted communities, defensible space planning, and prescribed burns, all of which aim to mitigate risk while recognising fire as an integral ecological force (Calkin et al., 2014; Moritz et al., 2014). The U.S. Forest Service (2021), in its wildfire response strategy, has called for a move away from suppression and toward proactive, community-based resilience that incorporates ecological knowledge and Indigenous fire practices. These changes represent not just a technical correction, but an evolution: from controlling fire to coexisting with it.
California’s 2022 Scoping Plan reflects this trajectory by connecting fire management with broader climate goals, including decarbonisation, urban planning, and public health (CARB, 2022). Nonetheless, resilience-building remains unequal. Many vulnerable communities, particularly low-income populations, outdoor labourers, and elderly residents, often lack the resources needed to prepare for or recover from extreme disruptions (Calkin et al., 2014). This unevenness stresses the need for resilience policies that are not only ecologically informed, but also socially equitable.
Moreover, mental and emotional preparedness are emerging as crucial components of adaptive capacity. Repeated experiences of loss, displacement, and uncertainty undermine community cohesion and psychological well-being, factors often neglected in traditional resilience frameworks. As Moritz et al. (2014) and Palinkas (2022) suggest, resilience must include psychosocial infrastructure: trauma-informed services, culturally sensitive support, and systems that foster hope and continuity amid disruption. Without addressing these invisible dimensions, technical adaptation alone cannot ensure long-term resilience.
In this broader sense, resilience is not only about “fire-proofing” landscapes, but also about cultivating emotional strength, institutional adaptability, and collective solidarity in the face of escalating crises.
Conclusion
California’s wildfire history reveals that climate resilience is not a fixed condition, but a gradual and collaborative process, shaped by crisis, adaptation, and transformation. While climate change amplifies environmental hazards, it also pushes to create new ways of living with risk, restructuring systems, and caring for one another. In this sense, repetition and its traumatic consequences with the right awareness processes and effective psychosocial infrastructure could become a source of experiential learning.
Yet such transformation cannot be reduced to technical fixes or abstract capacities. As shown throughout this paper, resilience must include not only ecological recovery and infrastructural adaptation, but also the well-being of the people who inhabit fire-prone territories. Wildfires leave behind not just scorched earth, but psychological scars: anxiety, displacement, and the loss of place identity. Mental health, as argued by Eisenman and Galway (2022) and Palinkas (2022), must be central to resilience planning, not an afterthought.
Building meaningful climate resilience, therefore, means recognizing the full spectrum of human vulnerability: from the physical body to the social fabric to the inner emotional life. It requires integrating mental health support into adaptation policy, addressing inequality in resource distribution, and fostering inclusive, community-led responses.
As a matter of fact, different studies and discussions, such as those featured in The Climate Question podcast by the BBC (2025), point out that mental resilience is often facilitated by meaningful connections between individuals and their communities. This form of collective support can emerge through simple yet significant acts, such as offering food, water, or other forms of immediate assistance, that restore trust, dignity, and a sense of belonging in the midst of disruption.
In a world of accelerating climate disruptions, California offers a complex but instructive case. Its wildfires expose institutional blind spots and social fault lines, but they also inspire innovations in governance, care, and coexistence. True resilience, in this context, is neither heroic resistance nor passive endurance, it is a shared practice of transforming vulnerability into capacity, and crisis into connection.
Riproduzione riservata ®
Bibliography:
BBC World Service, 2024, The Climate Question: How can we build mental resilience to climate change? https://open.spotify.com/episode/28Ax3KIb87FUoqcTTqqM9A?si=cf0bc4efb2994b21 (B-2)
Calkin, D. E., et al., 2014, How risk management can prevent future wildfire disasters in the wildland–urban interface. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1315088111 (A-1)
CARB (California Air Resources Board), 2022, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf (A-1)
Eisenman, D. P. and Galway, L. P., 2022, The mental health and well‑being effects of wildfire smoke: a scoping review. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-022-14662-z (A-2)
IPCC, 2023. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Summary for Policymakers. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf (A-1)
Kolden, C. A., 2019, We’re not doing enough prescribed fire in the Western United States to mitigate wildfire risk. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333460963_We're_Not_Doing_Enough_Prescribed_Fire_in_the_Western_United_States_to_Mitigate_Wildfire_Risk (A-2)
Meerow, S. et al., 2016, Defining urban resilience: A review. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169204615002418 (A-1)
Moritz, M. A., et al., 2014, Learning to coexist with wildfire. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267778667_Learning_to_coexist_with_wildfire (A-1)
Palinkas, L. A., 2022, Long-term Impacts of Bush/Wildfires on Mental Health. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11457232/ (A-2)
U.S. Forest Service, 2021, Confronting the Wildfire Crisis: A Strategy for Protecting Communities and Improving Resilience in America’s Forests. https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Confronting-Wildfire-Crisis.pdf (A-1)
Wettstein, Z. S., Vaidyanathan, A., 2023, Psychotropic Medication Prescriptions and Large California Wildfires. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38407907/ (A-2)
Information content | ||
1 | Confirmed | Confirmed by other independent sources; logical in itself; coherent with other information on the topic |
2 | Presumably true | Not confirmed; logical in itself; coherent with other information on the topic |
3 | Maybe true | Not confirmed; reasonably logical in itself; coherent with some other information on the topic |
4 | Uncertain | Not confirmed; possible but not logical in itself; no other information on the topic |
5 | Improbable | Not confirmed; not logical in itself; contradicts with other information on the topic |
6 | Not able to be evaluated | No basis for evaluating the validity of the information |
Trustworthiness of the source | ||
A | Trustworthy | No doubt about authenticity, reliability or competence; has a history of total trustworthiness |
B | Normally trustworthy | Small doubts about authenticity, reliability or competence, nevertheless have a history of valid information in a majority of cases |
C | Sufficiently trustworthy | Doubts about authenticity, reliability or competence; however, has supplied valid information in the past |
D | Normally not trustworthy | Significant doubts about authenticity, reliability or competence, however, has supplied valid information in the past |
E | Not trustworthy | Lack of authenticity, reliability or competence; history of invalid information |
F | Not able to be evaluated | No basis for evaluating the validity of the information |