In the DOB (not date of birth) the status of wildland fires is given. One of the columns is "Structures Threatened." I think it is time to change that wording to be more specific. Why don't we call it "Homes Threatened?" Back when I was the Washington State Emergency Operation Unit Manager and before that Operations Section Manager, we had the same terminology that was reported from jurisdictions and wildland fire teams to help define the scale and scope of a fire. This term "structures threatened" has always been a bugaboo for me.
There are many different types of "structures" that exist in a wildland fire environment. That term could be used to define a machine shed, outbuilding, barn, shed, tool shed, outhouse (the original porta-potty), corn crib, silo, garage, house, yurt, cabin, tent ...
For me, I think what is important is "homes." The term "home" could include a number of different types and styles to include vacation homes and primary residences. I'm OK calling a yurt a home if someone lives there.
When you use the word "structure," I've always, in my personal experience, found that the broad interpretation included many more buildings that are not homes. Given the type of GIS mapping that is available and census tracts that identify where people live, we can be more definitive about the risks of a wildfire.
Every home is important; every structure is not necessarily so.