skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Title: Conceptualizing a probabilistic risk and loss assessment framework for wildfires
Wildfires are an essential part of a healthy ecosystem, yet the expansion of the wildland-urban interface, combined with climatic changes and other anthropogenic activities, have led to the rise of wildfire hazards in the past few decades. Managing future wildfires and their multi-dimensional impacts requires moving from traditional reactive response to deploying proactive policies, strategies, and interventional programs to reduce wildfire risk to wildland-urban interface communities. Existing risk assessment frameworks lack a unified analytical method that properly captures uncertainties and the impact of decisions across social, ecological, and technical systems, hindering effective decision-making related to risk reduction investments. In this paper, a conceptual probabilistic wildfire risk assessment framework that propagates modeling uncertainties is presented. The framework characterizes the dynamic risk through spatial probability density functions of loss, where loss can include different decision variables, such as physical, social, economic, environmental, and health impacts, depending on the stakeholder needs and jurisdiction. The proposed approach consists of a computational framework to propagate and integrate uncertainties in the fire scenarios, propagation of fire in the wildland and urban areas, damage, and loss analyses. Elements of this framework that require further research are identified, and the complexity in characterizing wildfire losses and the need for an analytical-deliberative process to include the perspectives of the spectrum of stakeholders are discussed.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2124455 1953333
PAR ID:
10353350
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Natural Hazards
ISSN:
0921-030X
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Abstract Previous research has examined individual factors contributing to wildfire risk, but the compounding effects of these factors remain underexplored. Here, we introduce the “Integrated Human-centric Wildfire Risk Index (IHWRI)” to quantify the compounding effects of fire-weather intensification and anthropogenic factors—including ignitions and human settlement into wildland—on wildfire risk. While climatic trends increased the frequency of high-risk fire-weather by 2.5-fold, the combination of this trend with wildland-urban interface expansion led to a 4.1-fold increase in the frequency of conditions conducive to extreme-impact wildfires from 1990 to 2022 across California. More than three-quarters of extreme-impact wildfires—defined as the top 20 largest, most destructive, or deadliest events on record—originated within 1 km from the wildland-urban interface. The deadliest and most destructive wildfires—90% of which were human-caused—primarily occurred in the fall, while the largest wildfires—56% of which were human-caused—mostly took place in the summer. By integrating human activity and climate change impacts, we provide a holistic understanding of human-centric wildfire risk, crucial for policy development. 
    more » « less
  2. null (Ed.)
    We review science-based adaptation strategies for western North American (wNA) forests that include restoring active fire regimes and fostering resilient structure and composition of forested landscapes. As part of the review, we address common questions associated with climate adaptation and realignment treatments that run counter to a broad consensus in the literature. These include: (1) Are the effects of fire exclusion overstated? If so, are treatments unwarranted and even counterproductive? (2) Is forest thinning alone sufficient to mitigate wildfire hazard? (3) Can forest thinning and prescribed burning solve the problem? (4) Should active forest management, including forest thinning, be concentrated in the wildland urban interface (WUI)? (5) Can wildfires on their own do the work of fuel treatments? (6) Is the primary objective of fuel reduction treatments to assist in future firefighting response and containment? (7) Do fuel treatments work under extreme fire weather? (8) Is the scale of the problem too great – can we ever catch up? (9) Will planting more trees mitigate climate change in wNA forests? and (10) Is post-fire management needed or even ecologically justified? Based on our review of the scientific evidence, a range of proactive management actions are justified and necessary to keep pace with changing climatic and wildfire regimes and declining forest successional heterogeneity after severe wildfires. Science-based adaptation options include the use of managed wildfire, prescribed burning, and coupled mechanical thinning and prescribed burning as is consistent with land management allocations and forest conditions. Although some current models of fire management in wNA are averse to short-term risks and uncertainties, the long-term environmental, social, and cultural consequences of wildfire management primarily grounded in fire suppression are well documented, highlighting an urgency to invest in intentional forest management and restoration of active fire regimes. 
    more » « less
  3. We integrated a mechanistic wildfire simulation system with an agent-based landscape change model to investigate the feedbacks among climate change, population growth, development, landowner decision-making, vegetative succession, and wildfire. Our goal was to develop an adaptable simulation platform for anticipating risk-mitigation tradeoffs in a fire-prone wildland–urban interface (WUI) facing conditions outside the bounds of experience. We describe how five social and ecological system (SES) submodels interact over time and space to generate highly variable alternative futures even within the same scenario as stochastic elements in simulated wildfire, succession, and landowner decisions create large sets of unique, path-dependent futures for analysis. We applied the modeling system to an 815 km2 study area in western Oregon at a sub-taxlot parcel grain and annual timestep, generating hundreds of alternative futures for 2007–2056 (50 years) to explore how WUI communities facing compound risks from increasing wildfire and expanding periurban development can situate and assess alternative risk management approaches in their localized SES context. The ability to link trends and uncertainties across many futures to processes and events that unfold in individual futures is central to the modeling system. By contrasting selected alternative futures, we illustrate how assessing simulated feedbacks between wildfire and other SES processes can identify tradeoffs and leverage points in fire-prone WUI landscapes. Assessments include a detailed “post-mortem” of a rare, extreme wildfire event, and uncovered, unexpected stabilizing feedbacks from treatment costs that reduced the effectiveness of agent responses to signs of increasing risk. 
    more » « less
  4. Abstract Past studies reported a drastic growth in the wildland–urban interface (WUI), the location where man‐made structures meet or overlap wildland vegetation. Fighting fire is difficult in the WUI due to the combination of wildland and structural fuels, and therefore, WUI areas are characterized by frequent damage and loss of structures from wildfires. Recent wildland fire policy has targeted fire prevention, evacuation planning, fuel treatment, and home hardening in WUI areas. Therefore, it is important to understand the occurrence of wildfire events relative to the location of the WUI. In this work, we have reported the occurrences of wildfires with respect to the WUI and quantified how much of the WUI is on complex topography in California, which intensifies fire behavior and complicates fire suppression. We have additionally analyzed the relative importance of WUI‐related parameters, such as housing density, vegetation density, and distance to wildfires, as well as topographic factors, such as slope, elevation, aspect, and surface roughness, on the occurrence of large and small wildfires and the burned area of large wildfires near the WUI. We found that a very small percentage of wildfire ignition points and large wildfire‐burned areas (>400 ha or 1000 acres) were located in the WUI areas. A small percentage of large wildfires were encountered in WUI (3%), and the WUI area accounted for only 4% of the area burned, which increased to 5% and 56%, respectively, outside WUI (5‐km buffer from WUI). Similarly, 66% of fires ignited outside WUI, whereas only 3.6% ignited within WUI. Results from this study have implications for fuel management and infrastructure hardening, as well as for fire suppression and community response. 
    more » « less
  5. null (Ed.)
    The actions of residents in the wildland–urban interface can influence the private and social costs of wildfire. Wildfire programs that encourage residents to take action are often delivered without evidence of effects on behavior. Research from the field of behavioral science shows that simple, often low-cost changes to program design and delivery can influence socially desirable behaviors. In this research report, we highlight how behavioral science and experimental design may advance efforts to increase wildfire risk mitigation on private property. We offer an example in which we tested changes in outreach messaging on property owners’ interest in wildfire risk information. In partnership with a regional wildfire organization, we mailed 4564 letters directing property owners to visit personalized wildfire risk webpages. By tracking visitation, we observed that 590 letter recipients (12%) sought information about their wildfire risk and response varied by community. This research–practice collaboration has three benefits: innovation in outreach, evidence of innovation through experimental design, and real impacts on interest in wildfire mitigation among property owners. Future collaborations may inform behavioral and evidence-based programs to better serve residents and the public interest as the risks from wildfires are projected to grow. 
    more » « less