IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v117y2023i1d10.1007_s11069-023-05885-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing directional vulnerability to wildfire

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer L. Beverly

    (University of Alberta)

  • Air M. Forbes

    (University of Alberta)

Abstract

Wildfires spread along trajectories set by a coincident wind direction. Despite the highly directional nature of wildfire threats to public safety, landscape fire risk assessments are typically omnidirectional. We used a simple metric of landscape fire exposure to develop a systematic and standardized approach for assessing directional vulnerability to wildfire within a circular assessment area centered on locale of interest. First, we defined a viable wildfire trajectory by analyzing 573 sample trajectories delineated within the burned areas of historical fires in the province of Alberta, Canada. On average, sample trajectories intersected locations assessed as having high wildfire exposure for 79% of their length. We, therefore, defined a viable fire trajectory as one with at least 80% of its length traversing high exposure. Using this criterion, we assessed the viability of directional trajectories representing possible wildfire pathways from outlying landscape areas into a locale of interest centered within a roughly 70,000-ha circular assessment area. At each central assessment point (i.e., community centroid), we delineated 360 linear trajectories into the community at 1° directional intervals. Each 15-km trajectory was divided into three 5-km segments for analysis (inner, middle, and outer). The length of each directional trajectory segment that intersected high exposure was computed for all 1080 directional segments in each community assessment area. In total, we evaluated 986,040 directional segments for 913 communities in the province. Communities exhibited highly unique and varied patterns of directional vulnerabilities to wildfire encroachment. Of the communities analyzed, 136 had at least one continuous viable trajectory spanning the full 15-km distance from the community centroid, and 211 communities had at least one continuous viable trajectory spanning 5–15 km from the community centroid. We developed customized rose or polar diagrams for displaying spatially referenced directional vulnerabilities to wildfire for a given community and combined results for all 913 analyzed communities to assess regional vulnerabilities within administrative management areas (i.e., Forest Areas). Potential applications of our directional assessment method are discussed, including prepositioning and prioritizing limited fire suppression resources, planning fuel reduction treatments, proactively identifying candidate locations for operational activities, assessing transportation network vulnerabilities during evacuations, and scenario planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer L. Beverly & Air M. Forbes, 2023. "Assessing directional vulnerability to wildfire," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 117(1), pages 831-849, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:117:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-023-05885-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-023-05885-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-023-05885-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-023-05885-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger Flage & Terje Aven & Enrico Zio & Piero Baraldi, 2014. "Concerns, Challenges, and Directions of Development for the Issue of Representing Uncertainty in Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1196-1207, July.
    2. Alex W. Dye & John B. Kim & Andrew McEvoy & Fang Fang & Karin L. Riley, 2021. "Evaluating rural Pacific Northwest towns for wildfire evacuation vulnerability," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 107(1), pages 911-935, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bjørnsen, Kjartan & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås & Aven, Terje, 2019. "A semi-quantitative assessment process for improved use of the expected value of information measure in safety management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 494-502.
    2. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    4. Anna Kosovac & Brian Davidson & Hector Malano, 2019. "Are We Objective? A Study into the Effectiveness of Risk Measurement in the Water Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-13, February.
    5. Chao Fang & Piao Dong & Yi-Ping Fang & Enrico Zio, 2020. "Vulnerability analysis of critical infrastructure under disruptions: An application to China Railway High-speed," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(2), pages 235-245, April.
    6. Glette-Iversen, Ingrid & Aven, Terje, 2021. "On the meaning of and relationship between dragon-kings, black swans and related concepts," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    7. Yu, Xuchao & Liang, Wei & Zhang, Laibin & Reniers, Genserik & Lu, Linlin, 2018. "Risk assessment of the maintenance process for onshore oil and gas transmission pipelines under uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 50-67.
    8. Øystein Amundrud & Terje Aven & Roger Flage, 2017. "How the definition of security risk can be made compatible with safety definitions," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(3), pages 286-294, June.
    9. von Döhren, Peer & Haase, Dagmar, 2019. "Risk assessment concerning urban ecosystem disservices: The example of street trees in Berlin, Germany," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    10. Zvi Safra & Sinong Ma & Tigran Melkonyan, 2019. "Is Allocation Affected by the Perception of Others' Irresponsible Behavior and by Ambiguity?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2182-2196, October.
    11. Zeng, Bo & Wei, Xuan & Zhao, Dongbo & Singh, Chanan & Zhang, Jianhua, 2018. "Hybrid probabilistic-possibilistic approach for capacity credit evaluation of demand response considering both exogenous and endogenous uncertainties," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 229(C), pages 186-200.
    12. Ludovic Gaudard & Franco Romerio, 2020. "A Conceptual Framework to Classify and Manage Risk, Uncertainty and Ambiguity: An Application to Energy Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    13. Zio, Enrico, 2022. "Prognostics and Health Management (PHM): Where are we and where do we (need to) go in theory and practice," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 218(PA).
    14. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.
    15. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    16. Jeremy Rohmer & Eric Chojnacki, 2021. "Forecast of environment systems using expert judgements: performance comparison between the possibilistic and the classical model," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 131-146, March.
    17. Rachunok, Benjamin & Nateghi, Roshanak, 2020. "The sensitivity of electric power infrastructure resilience to the spatial distribution of disaster impacts," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    18. Terje Aven & Louis Anthony Cox, 2016. "National and Global Risk Studies: How Can the Field of Risk Analysis Contribute?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 186-190, February.
    19. Goerlandt, Floris & Islam, Samsul, 2021. "A Bayesian Network risk model for estimating coastal maritime transportation delays following an earthquake in British Columbia," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    20. Terje Aven, 2017. "Improving the foundation and practice of reliability engineering," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(3), pages 295-305, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:117:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-023-05885-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.