As always, it depends. I live in fire prone SoCal, have been in and around wildfires in the past. Photographed quite a few of them. Once had a blast blow right over the fire truck I was hunkering under, good times.

There are things homeowners can do to help protect their property and some of them will stay if they can to try and save their homes. Given that manpower is often a real problem, having dozens or even hundreds of extra bodies helping out could be a real help. Or not.

It's being studied, that's cause it's never been done and the folks who fight the fires want to know if it is feasible for more homeowners to stay and fight the fire as well.

There are also the legal concerns, does a homeowner have the right to stay and protect their own property or not?

As for the fire retardant stuff, there's Phoscheck which is the stuff you see being dropped from the air and there's the stuff that some private companies are using. Most of them are in the form of a gel that is sprayed onto the structure from the ground, not only does it work, but there are insurance companies that are offering the service for free to their policyholders in times of danger. It's much cheaper than replacing an entire home. Like the "stay and defend" plan, the fire retardant issue is also drawing controversy as some firefighters claim that allowing more personnel, ie, the private crews spraying the retardant, into a fire area is a bad idea.

JohnE