WildfireRiskFinder

Neola, IA

Neola, IA's wildfire risk, in USFS's own numbers

Elevated
47thpercentile nationally

USFS scores Neola at the 47th national percentile for wildfire risk to structures (modestly above the national average for wildfire risk), a figure built from 564 real buildings rather than raw vegetation cover. (Source: USFS's Wildfire Risk to Communities methodology.)

Separately from the risk score above, Neola's burn probability — fire likelihood with no building count factored in — sits at the 46th percentile nationally.

Neola's building exposure, zone by zone

564Total buildings
10.8%Direct exposure
0%Indirect exposure
89.2%Minimal exposure

Only 10.8% of Neola's 564 buildings carry Direct exposure and 0% carry Indirect; the remaining 89.2% are Minimal, which shifts the risk driving this page's score toward the surrounding landscape rather than any one structure.

How Neola compares

Within Iowa, Neola ranks higher (65th percentile) than it does nationally (47th) — one of the more fire-exposed places in a state that, overall, scores lower than that. Among the 31,521 US communities USFS scores, Neola ranks 16,635 for wildfire risk (1 is highest) and 16,338 by building count (1 is largest). Within Iowa alone, it ranks 360 of 1,017 places by risk. See the full county-by-county picture for Iowa on its state page.

Shopping for coverage in Neola

Neola's elevated wildfire rating (47th percentile) isn't the kind of score driving the carrier pullback making news in the highest-risk Western markets — but a standard homeowners quote is still worth comparing on its own terms.

Lowering exposure, not just insuring around it

With 89.2% of buildings rated Minimal exposure, Neola gets less benefit from structure hardening than a Direct- or Indirect-dominant place would — the home-hardening guide explains why the zone matters.

Where Neola's figures come from

The methodology guide shows exactly how USFS turned 564 counted buildings into the percentiles shown above for Neola. The exposure-zones guide covers what Neola's dominant minimal exposure actually means, with real examples from across the dataset.