I'm unable to open your link (phone issue perhaps). I've heard that in WA state most fires (over 80%) are human caused. Given CA is at 95%, why is oregon so different? Are we talking different measures somehow? I'm wondering where the discrepancy is - I doubt that OR would be that unique of a situation.
As to your question, Oregon has just over half the population of Washington (4.2M vs 7.8M) but almost 50% more land area (96k sqmi vs 66.5k sqmi), leading to Washington having close to 3x the population density of Oregon (44 vs 118 people/sqmi). California has more than twice the population density of Oregon.
This feels sufficient to account for the discrepancy.
Thank you for adding the numbers (pretty sure the pdf issue is just me, old ass phone)
The population density explanation makes sense. Though, that density is very unequally distributed. Factors like square area with fewer than X people (how much total low density area exists), miles of forest access roads/rec sites - perhaps those numbers might give a very strong correlation. I wonder if you took just northern california, if the causes would even out to OR. (I agree pop density is likely a good correlating measure, just wonder if there is another that is even stronger)
Though, we were comparing apples and oranges! If we compare natural vs all human causes - assuming misc is human caused, then 70% of fires in OR are human caused. The percentage range for human caused fires being between 70% and 90% between different states makes sense.
